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 Getting Things Done ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)

Criterion	Product Discovery Problem Interview	Product Discovery Concierge MVP	Operations Getting Things Done	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)
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.	With many open commitments and ideas in daily life, a reliable external storage system emerges. The method relieves the mind so priority and context don't have to compete in memory.	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.
Complexitysame	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium
Timedifferent	30-60 min je Interview	1-4 Wochen	1-2 h Setup, laufend	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional
Participantsdifferent	5-12 Interviews	3-10 Kunden	1	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Async	Workshop + async
Outputdifferent	Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments	Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks	Action Lists, Project List, Review Routine	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions
Tagsno overlap	DiscoveryInterviewsValidation	MVPValidationServiceDiscovery	ProductivityPlanningTasksExecution	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks

Add more methods