View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. | 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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 8-80 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
