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) |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |