View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation 1-2-4-All |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When many people in a group too rarely get to speak, 1-2-4-All distributes thinking time more fairly. The format builds participation step by step and makes quiet or still-unformed thoughts usable faster. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 10-20 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-100+ | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Idea List, Shared Insights, Emergent Themes | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationInclusionIdeation | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
