View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  Growth A/B Testing |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 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. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 2-5 | 1-6 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |