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 |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |  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. | When an idea can first fail or grow through genuine hands-on support, it relies on manual work instead of automation. It shows whether user value holds up even under manual execution. | When several minimal variants compete to answer the same question, it makes comparing and choosing between them cleaner. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Test Matrix and a Test Plan. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1 h bis mehrere Wochen | 1-4 Wochen | 45-75 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-10 Kunden | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | PDCA Log, Experiment Plan, Learning Outcome, Standard Change | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | Continuous improvementLeanExperiments | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |