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 Stakeholder 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 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. | 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 | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 60–90 min | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 2-8 | 3-20 |
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 | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
