View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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. | When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 1-2 h | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 4-12 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
