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 Interview5-Minuten VC-CheckATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Solution Interview |  Business Strategy 5-Minuten VC-Check |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  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. | The 5-Minute VC Check clarifies opportunities and strategic options at the earliest idea stage. It compares problem quality, customer willingness to pay, alternatives, differentiation, and market potential, and captures the result as a VC-check note, go/sharpen/park decision, and risk list. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | 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 | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 5-15 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional |
Participantsdifferent | 5-10 Interviews | 1-5 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Solution Feedback, Objection List, Validation Notes | VC-check note, Go/sharpen/park decision, Risk and assumption list, Next validation step | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions |
Tagsno overlap | ValidationInterviewsPrototype | StartupValidationCompetition | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks |