View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  Product Discovery Jobs to Be Done |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Product Discovery Opportunity Scoring |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When switching motives and progress are unclear, it reconstructs the situation from real customer circumstances. It shows why a switch happens and what kind of progress is being sought. | 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 opportunities need ranking by their effect, it makes importance and satisfaction directly comparable. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as an opportunity-score table and top outcomes. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 1-3 Wochen | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 5-12 Interviews | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Job Stories, Outcome Statements, Opportunity List | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | CustomerOutcomesNeeds | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds |