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 Working Backwards |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Delivery RAID Log |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When the target state and benefit need to be clear first, it thinks backward from the desired outcome into the product logic. It sharpens vision, objections, and value proposition before elaboration. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 4-8 h, mehrere Iterationen | 45-60 min | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 | 2-8 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Future Press Release, FAQ, Vision Statement | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | VisionNarrativeAlignment | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |