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) |  Architecture Request for Comments |  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. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | 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 | Low |
Timedifferent | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
