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) |  Systems Thinking Evaporating Cloud |  Systems Thinking Leverage Points |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. | Leverage Points show exactly where interventions in a system produce a disproportionate effect. It draws relationships, patterns, and feedback loops. The result is captured as a leverage map and action strategy. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 60-120 min | Half day | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 2-8 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
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 | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments | Leverage Map, Action Strategy | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking | Systems thinkingChangeStrategy | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |