View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations Fault Tree Analysis |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Delivery RAID Log |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a critical top event with several possible triggers, the method logically models failure paths. It makes visible which combinations of conditions can lead to damage. | 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. | 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. | 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 | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 45-90 min | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-12 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | RAID Log, Status Report Source | 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 | RiskRoot causeSafety | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |