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 with architecture components and concrete change tasks for comparison.
Architecture
SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)
Paper illustration for Argument Mapping
Decision Making
Argument Mapping
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.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.When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on.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
LowHighMediumHigh
Timedifferent
15-45 minPreparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope1-3 hSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope
Participantsdifferent
1-3Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting1-8Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
ADR File, Decision Log, RationaleDomain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternativesArgument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision RationalePrioritized 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
ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality
SensemakingDecisionRationale
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
Add more methods