View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations PDCA Cycle |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Product Discovery Learning Card |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For an improvement that still has to prove itself in everyday work, the method runs it through small learning loops. It connects planning, checking, and standardization into a repeatable learning mode. | 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. | The Learning Card connects traceable test results to a reasoned next action while keeping the limits of the insight visible. | When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1 h bis mehrere Wochen | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 25-40 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1-5 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | PDCA Log, Experiment Plan, Learning Outcome, Standard Change | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Learning Card with evidence and next action | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | Continuous improvementLeanExperiments | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryLearning | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |