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 Six Thinking Hats |
|---|---|---|---|
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 a topic gets stuck too quickly in the same thinking mode, Six Thinking Hats deliberately separates the perspectives. This means facts, risks, creativity, and emotional signals get worked through one after another instead of mixed together. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 4-12 |
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 | Perspective Notes, Decision Inputs, Action Items |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | FacilitationOptionsDecision |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
