Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:Kano Model ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)Assumption Mapping Assumption Surfacing

Criterion	Product Discovery Kano Model	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Product Discovery Assumption Mapping	Decision Making Assumption Surfacing
Purposedifferent	When features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight.	ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification.	When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first.	Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it.
Complexitydifferent	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low
Timedifferent	1-2 Tage	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	45-60 min	45-90 min
Participantsdifferent	10-50	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	2-8	2-8
Formatsame	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Workshop + async
Outputdifferent	Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking	Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan
Tagsno overlap	SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation	AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery

Add more methods