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 Open Space Technology |  Facilitation Stakeholder 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 complex topic does not yet have a fitting agenda, Open Space Technology hands topic ownership back to the participants. The format suits questions that only move forward when real interest determines the order. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Low |
Timedifferent | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 0.5-2 Tage | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 20-500+ | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Session Marketplace, Proceedings, Action Topics | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
