View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | 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 |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30–60 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional |
Participantsdifferent | 2-5 | 4-8 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions |
Tagsno overlap | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
