View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations Process Mapping |  Operations Gemba Walk |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Operations After-Action Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 there is uncertainty about the real course of a process, the method brings observation to the place where work happens. It combines perception, follow-up questions, and process knowledge so decisions rest on actual workflows instead of assumptions. | 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. | After missions or project phases with unclear outcomes, the method makes visible what actually happened and what can be learned from it. It separates course, effect, and causes so experience turns into solid improvement. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30-120 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 20-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 2-6 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Process Map, Handoff List, Improvement Backlog | Observation Notes, Improvement Ideas | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Lessons learned, Action items, Event summary |
Tagsno overlap | ProcessOperationsImprovement | LeanObservationProcessOperations | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | LearningOperationsImprovement |