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 Mind Mapping |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|
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 topic is still unclear and too many thoughts surface at once, Mind Mapping creates an open surface for ordering them. It makes connections, subtopics, and starting points visible without fixing them too early. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 15-45 min | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1-10 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | 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 | Mind Map, Topic Clusters, Open Questions | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | BrainstormingIdeasMappingStructureFacilitation | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
