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 Alignment Mapping |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 5-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
