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 Problem Interview |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
