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)DIBBATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Assumption Surfacing
| Criterion |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-2 h | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 2-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |