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 Dot Voting |  Decision Making Pareto Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | In many problem situations, effect is distributed unequally across many causes. A Pareto Analysis separates the few drivers with high leverage from the long remainder and focuses attention on what measurably moves the needle. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 5-15 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 3-20 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Pareto Chart, Top Causes, Focus List |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | PrioritizationQualityFocusRoot cause |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
