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 Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Storytelling |
|---|---|---|---|
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 it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | When an insight needs to have an effect, storytelling translates dry facts into a comprehensible development. It combines context, tension, and consequence into a form that people remember and pass on more easily. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 45-90 min | 45-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-10 | 1-6 |
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 | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Narrative Outline, Key Message, Story Arc |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | CommunicationNarrativeStakeholdersFacilitation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
