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) |  Product Discovery Test Card |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | The Test Card turns a critical assumption into a testable claim and specifies in advance which result counts as success. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 20-35 min | 45-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1-5 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | 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 | Test Card with a pre-set threshold | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |