View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Current Reality TreeArchitecture Decision RecordATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Current Reality Tree |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | A Current Reality Tree condenses many symptoms into a few causal chains. The method makes visible which core problems drive several negative effects at once. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 15-45 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1-3 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Current Reality Tree, Core Problems, Intervention Ideas | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingRoot causeConstraintsCausality | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
