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:Problem Interview Concierge MVP ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)MVP Test Matrix

Criterion	Product Discovery Problem Interview	Product Discovery Concierge MVP	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix
Purposedifferent	When the picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution.	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.	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 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.
Complexitysame	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium
Timedifferent	30-60 min je Interview	1-4 Wochen	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	45-75 min
Participantsdifferent	5-12 Interviews	3-10 Kunden	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	2-8
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Workshop
Outputdifferent	Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments	Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Test Matrix, Test Plan
Tags1 shared	DiscoveryInterviewsValidation	MVPValidationServiceDiscovery	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions

Add more methods