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:Architecture Decision Record Fishbone Diagram Scatter Diagram ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)

Criterion	Architecture Architecture Decision Record	Operations Fishbone Diagram	Operations Scatter Diagram	Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Purposedifferent	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.	When a problem has several possible contributing factors, the method sorts causes by cause areas. It prevents an initial hunch from blocking the view of other plausible drivers.	When the question is whether two measures are related, the method makes patterns in the data picture visible. It separates felt correlations from relationships that actually show up in the data.	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.
Complexitydifferent	Low	Low	Low	High
Timedifferent	15-45 min	30-60 min	30-90 min	Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope
Participantsdifferent	1-3	2-8	1-4	Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders
Formatdifferent	Async	Workshop	Workshop + async	Workshop + async
Outputdifferent	ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale	Fishbone Diagram, Cause Categories, Investigation Backlog	Scatter Plot, Korrelationsnotiz, Hypothesenliste	Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations
Tagsno overlap	ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance	Root causeQualityOperations	Root causeQualityVisualization	ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders

Add more methods