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 |  Facilitation Barcamp |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | When many people can contribute knowledge and the flow should stay open, Barcamp provides a framework for self-organized sessions. The format channels energy without defining the content too narrowly in advance. | 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 | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | Halber Tag bis 2 Tage | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 8-80 | 15-200 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Session Board, Session Notes, Community Learnings | 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 | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | FacilitationLarge groupLearning | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
