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:Architecture Decision Record Solution Interview arc42 ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)

Criterion	Architecture Architecture Decision Record	Product Discovery Solution Interview	Architecture arc42	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)
Purposedifferent	An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable.	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.	arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes.	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	Low	Medium	Low	Medium
Timedifferent	15-45 min	30-60 min je Interview	1-2 Tage	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional
Participantsdifferent	1-3	5-10 Interviews	1-4	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation
Formatdifferent	Async	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Workshop + async
Outputdifferent	ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale	Solution Feedback, Objection List, Validation Notes	Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions
Tagsno overlap	ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance	ValidationInterviewsPrototype	ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks

Add more methods