View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Business Strategy Ansoff Matrix |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | The Ansoff Matrix organizes growth options by market and product relation. It helps weigh expansion, diversification, and adaptation cleanly against each other. | When demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min | 1-5 Tage | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Ansoff Matrix, Growth Options, Risk Notes | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | GrowthStrategyMarketPortfolio | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks |