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 Landing Page Test |  Delivery RAID Log |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a value proposition first needs to be checked for resonance, it condenses the idea onto a focused entry page. It shows whether language and offering carry interest. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 45-60 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | Nutzertraffic | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 2-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Landing Page, Conversion Data, Learning Summary | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | ValidationConversionMarketing | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |