View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | 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 two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-4 Wochen | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 1-6 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |