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:Risk Storming Problem Interview ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)Assumption Mapping

Criterion	Architecture Risk Storming	Product Discovery Problem Interview	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Product Discovery Assumption Mapping
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 the picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution.	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.
Complexitydifferent	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium
Timedifferent	60-90 min	30-60 min je Interview	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	45-60 min
Participantsdifferent	4-12	5-12 Interviews	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	2-8
Formatdifferent	Workshop	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Workshop + async
Outputdifferent	Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog	Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking
Tags1 shared	RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation	DiscoveryInterviewsValidation	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation

Add more methods