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) |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Operations 5 Whys |  Operations 8D Problem Solving |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. | For an acute quality or delivery problem, the method structures immediate protection and root cause work together. It keeps the situation stable while the actual cause is investigated cleanly. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 30–60 min | 15-30 min | 1-6 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 4-8 | 2-6 | 4-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Root cause notes, Countermeasures | 8D Report, Containment Plan, Root Cause Evidence, Corrective Action Plan |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving | QualityProblem solvingRoot cause |