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) |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-2 h | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 4-12 | 5-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
