View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Design SprintARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Risk Storming
| Criterion |  Innovation Design Sprint |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture Risk Storming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. | 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. | LASR helps development teams identify where their software falls short of important quality goals and which improvements to consider. A small group with existing system knowledge can make an initial assessment and investigate open questions in more detail. | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 4-5 Tage | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-8 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Lean Mission Statement describing the software’s purpose, Prioritized quality goals and evaluation criteria, Risks and estimated gaps against quality goals, More closely examined findings and open checks | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog |
Tagsno overlap | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation |