Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Mad Sad Glad 4Ls Retrospective Expectation Mapping

Criterion	Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)	Agile Mad Sad Glad	Agile 4Ls Retrospective	Facilitation Expectation Mapping
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 a team's or workshop's mood needs to become readable, it structures emotional signals with little setup. It makes strain, relief, and sources of energy tangible.	When a sprint should not only be assessed but also learned from, it captures experience in clear learning categories. It records what worked, what's missing, and what should run differently next time.	When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge.
Complexitydifferent	High	Low	Low	Low
Timedifferent	Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope	30-60 min	45–75 min	45-90 min
Participantsdifferent	Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders	3-10	Team members involved	3-12
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop	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	Emotion Board, Themes, Action Items	4Ls Board, Learning Themes, Improvement Actions	Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements
Tagsno overlap	ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders	RetrospectiveTeamReflection	RetrospectiveLearningReflectionTeam	AlignmentStakeholdersTeam

Add more methods