View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Risk Storming |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 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 |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 3-10 Kunden | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tags1 shared | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
