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:Teach-back ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)Architecture Decision Record Feynman Technique

Criterion	Knowledge Modeling Teach-back	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Architecture Architecture Decision Record	Knowledge Modeling Feynman Technique
Purposedifferent	Teach-back checks whether an explanation actually got through to the other person. The method makes misunderstandings visible early and strengthens shared understanding in advisory and learning situations.	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.	An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable.	The Feynman Technique checks understanding by explaining a topic so that it stays easy for others to understand. It makes knowledge gaps visible before they become costly in everyday work.
Complexitydifferent	Low	Medium	Low	Low
Timedifferent	5-20 min	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	15-45 min	20-60 min
Participantsdifferent	2-8	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	1-3	1
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Async	Async
Outputdifferent	Understanding Check, Clarification Notes, Learning Gaps	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale	Plain-language Explanation, Knowledge Gaps, Study Notes
Tagsno overlap	LearningUnderstandingCommunication	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance	LearningKnowledgeUnderstanding

Add more methods