Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)IBIS Design Thinking Architecture Decision Record

Criterion	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Knowledge Modeling IBIS	Innovation Design Thinking	Architecture Architecture Decision Record
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.	IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus.	For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service.	An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable.
Complexitydifferent	Medium	Medium	High	Low
Timedifferent	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	1-3 h	1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen	15-45 min
Participantsdifferent	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	2-8	4-10	1-3
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Workshop	Async
Outputdifferent	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes	Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings	ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale
Tagsno overlap	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	RationaleKnowledgeDecision	InnovationPrototypeResearch	ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance

Add more methods