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 RecordTest CardATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Fake Door Test
| Criterion |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Product Discovery Test Card |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | The Test Card turns a critical assumption into a testable claim and specifies in advance which result counts as success. | 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 demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 20-35 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 1-5 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Test Card with a pre-set threshold | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |