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 Personas |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|
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 target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | Internes Team | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
