View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Example MappingAcceptance Criteria WorkshopSAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Agile Example Mapping |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a story carries business rules and exceptions, it brings clarity before implementation. It makes examples, open questions, and boundaries visible enough that the logic becomes jointly sound. | When a story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. | SAAM helps teams judge an architecture’s suitability for selected tasks and changes. It is particularly useful for examining modifiability and comparing architecture alternatives with clear reasoning. | 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 | Low | Low | High | High |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 20-40 min pro Story | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-7 | 3-6 | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | Domain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternatives | 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 | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |