View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery User Story Mapping |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When user goals and delivery scope could drift apart, it orders the journey from goal to slice. It makes visible where an MVP can genuinely be cut. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 1-4 Wochen | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 3-10 Kunden | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Story Map, Release Slices, Backlog Candidates | 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 | BacklogJourneyPlanningMVP | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
