View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Current Reality Tree |  Delivery RAID Log |  Systems Thinking CATWOE Analysis |  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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | CATWOE structures a problem from six viewpoints and prevents too narrow a view of the situation. Different experiences of the system become comparably discussable this way. | 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 | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 45-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 3-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Current Reality Tree, Core Problems, Intervention Ideas | RAID Log, Status Report Source | CATWOE Canvas, Root Definition, Stakeholder Perspectives, Constraints | 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 | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | Systems thinkingFramingStakeholders | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |