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 Risk Storming |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  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. | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 60-90 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 4-12 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tags1 shared | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |