View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Architecture arc42 |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes. | 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 | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-2 Tage | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 1-4 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
