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)Current Reality Tree Assumption Mapping Risk Storming

Criterion	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Systems Thinking Current Reality Tree	Product Discovery Assumption Mapping	Architecture Risk Storming
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.	A Current Reality Tree condenses many symptoms into a few causal chains. The method makes visible which core problems drive several negative effects at once.	When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first.	Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog.
Complexitydifferent	Medium	High	Medium	Low
Timedifferent	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	2-6 h	45-60 min	60-90 min
Participantsdifferent	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	3-8	2-8	4-12
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop	Workshop + async	Workshop
Outputdifferent	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Current Reality Tree, Core Problems, Intervention Ideas	Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking	Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog
Tagsno overlap	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	Systems thinkingRoot causeConstraintsCausality	AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation	RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation

Add more methods