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 Risk Storming |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 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. | 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 | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min | 1-4 Wochen | 5-15 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 1-6 | 3-20 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |