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:Expectation Mapping ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Sailboat Retrospective Start Stop Continue

Criterion	Facilitation Expectation Mapping	Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)	Agile Sailboat Retrospective	Agile Start Stop Continue
Purposedifferent	When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge.	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 wants to read momentum, brakes, and risks together, it offers an easily understandable picture of the situation. It makes drive, obstacles, and headwind visible in the same picture.	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.
Complexitydifferent	Low	High	Low	Low
Timedifferent	45-90 min	Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope	45-90 min	30-60 min
Participantsdifferent	3-12	Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders	4-12	3-12
Formatdifferent	Workshop	Workshop + async	Workshop	Workshop
Outputdifferent	Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements	Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations	Sailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions	Start Stop Continue Board, Improvement Actions
Tagsno overlap	AlignmentStakeholdersTeam	ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders	RetrospectiveTeamImprovement	RetrospectiveImprovementTeamReflection

Add more methods