Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:Process Mapping Assumption Mapping Risk Storming ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)

Criterion	Operations Process Mapping	Product Discovery Assumption Mapping	Architecture Risk Storming	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)
Purposedifferent	With a confusing workflow that has many handoffs, the method makes the actual process visible. It shows where work is passed on, delayed, or duplicated, so improvement targets the right spots.	When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first.	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.	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.
Complexitydifferent	Medium	Medium	Low	Medium
Timedifferent	1-3 h	45-60 min	60-90 min	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional
Participantsdifferent	3-10	2-8	4-12	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation
Formatdifferent	Workshop	Workshop + async	Workshop	Workshop + async
Outputdifferent	Process Map, Handoff List, Improvement Backlog	Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking	Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions
Tagsno overlap	ProcessOperationsImprovement	AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation	RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks

Add more methods