View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Failure Mode and Effects AnalysisATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Specification by Example
| Criterion |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Agile Specification by Example |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability. | 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 business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
