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 |  Innovation Design Thinking |  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. | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | 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 | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 4-10 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | InnovationPrototypeResearch | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
