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 Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Lean Coffee |
|---|---|---|---|
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 controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. | When a group without a fixed agenda needs to get into useful conversations quickly, Lean Coffee structures the start around interests rather than a presentation. The group itself negotiates which topics get time first and which wait. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 45-90 min | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 8-80 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Prioritized Topics, Discussion Notes, Action Items |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | FacilitationAutonomyDialogue |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
