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) |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |  UX Research Surveys |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When a topic needs to be validated broadly and many people can answer the same question, surveys gather structured feedback in a scalable form. Answers become comparable and segmentable instead of remaining merely anecdotal. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-3 h | 3-14 Tage | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 2-8 | 50+ | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | 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 | Survey Results, Charts, Segment Insights | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | RationaleKnowledgeDecision | QuantitativeResearchValidation | SensemakingDecisionRationale |