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)Start Stop Continue Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Mad Sad Glad

Criterion	Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)	Agile Start Stop Continue	Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis	Agile Mad Sad Glad
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 wants to deliberately adjust its working behavior, it makes habits visible and assessable. It focuses on concrete changes instead of diffuse mood.	For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability.	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.
Complexitydifferent	High	Low	High	Low
Timedifferent	Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope	30-60 min	2-6 h	30-60 min
Participantsdifferent	Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders	3-12	3-10	3-10
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	Start Stop Continue Board, Improvement Actions	FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions	Emotion Board, Themes, Action Items
Tagsno overlap	ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders	RetrospectiveImprovementTeamReflection	RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause	RetrospectiveTeamReflection

Add more methods