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:ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)Assumption Mapping Nominal Group Technique Dot Voting

Criterion	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Product Discovery Assumption Mapping	Facilitation Nominal Group Technique	Facilitation Dot Voting
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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first.	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.	When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection.
Complexitydifferent	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low
Timedifferent	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	45-60 min	60-120 min	5-15 min
Participantsdifferent	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	2-8	5-12	3-20
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Workshop	Workshop
Outputdifferent	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking	Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority	Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation	FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion	FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization

Add more methods