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 Risk Storming ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)Assumption Mapping

Criterion	Product Discovery Solution Interview	Architecture Risk Storming	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Product Discovery Assumption Mapping
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.	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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first.
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	45-60 min
Participantsdifferent	5-10 Interviews	4-12	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	2-8
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop	Workshop + async	Workshop + async
Outputdifferent	Solution Feedback, Objection List, Validation Notes	Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking
Tags1 shared	ValidationInterviewsPrototype	RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation

Add more methods