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:Blameless Postmortem Start Stop Continue ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Mad Sad Glad

Criterion	DevOps Blameless Postmortem	Agile Start Stop Continue	Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)	Agile Mad Sad Glad
Purposedifferent	After an incident with damage or a near miss, the method creates a sober field for learning without assigning blame. It directs attention to the course of events, conditions, and effective countermeasures.	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.	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'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	Medium	Low	High	Low
Timedifferent	30-90 min	30-60 min	Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope	30-60 min
Participantsdifferent	3-12	3-12	Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders	3-10
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop	Workshop + async	Workshop
Outputdifferent	Postmortem Doc, Action Items, Timeline	Start Stop Continue Board, Improvement Actions	Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations	Emotion Board, Themes, Action Items
Tagsno overlap	Site Reliability EngineeringIncidentLearningReliability	RetrospectiveImprovementTeamReflection	ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders	RetrospectiveTeamReflection

Add more methods