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 |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Domain Modeling EventStorming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When an idea can first fail or grow through genuine hands-on support, it relies on manual work instead of automation. It shows whether user value holds up even under manual execution. | When a domain consists of many events, rules, and states, it creates a shared modeling space for the team. It bundles language, flows, and boundaries before domain knowledge fragments into siloed views. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 30–60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 2-8 h |
Participantsdifferent | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 4-8 | 3-10 Kunden | 5-12 |
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 | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Event Timeline, Ubiquitous Language, Boundaries, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | Domain-Driven DesignEventsDiscoveryWorkshop |