methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of two considered options leading to a decision record with a marked status and visible consequences.
Architecture
Architecture Decision Record
Paper illustration for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
Operations
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
Paper illustration with architecture components and concrete change tasks for comparison.
Architecture
SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
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.For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability.SAAM helps teams judge an architecture’s suitability for selected tasks and changes. It is particularly useful for examining modifiability and comparing architecture alternatives with clear reasoning.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
LowHighHighHigh
Timedifferent
15-45 min2-6 hPreparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scopeSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope
Participantsdifferent
1-33-10Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weightingEvaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
ADR File, Decision Log, RationaleFMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation ActionsDomain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternativesPrioritized 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
RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause
ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
Add more methods