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:Solution Interview Architecture Decision Record Concierge MVP ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)

Criterion	Product Discovery Solution Interview	Architecture Architecture Decision Record	Product Discovery Concierge MVP	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)
Purposedifferent	When a solution idea is already on the table, it checks how it is understood and evaluated. It looks for resonance, objections, and missing fit early in the conversation.	An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable.	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.	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.
Complexitydifferent	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium
Timedifferent	30-60 min je Interview	15-45 min	1-4 Wochen	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional
Participantsdifferent	5-10 Interviews	1-3	3-10 Kunden	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Async	Workshop + async	Workshop + async
Outputdifferent	Solution Feedback, Objection List, Validation Notes	ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale	Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions
Tagsno overlap	ValidationInterviewsPrototype	ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance	MVPValidationServiceDiscovery	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks

Add more methods