methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of the Force Field Analysis working structure.
Decision Making
Force Field Analysis
A paper-based illustration representing arc42 with its core stages and visible working result.
Architecture
arc42
Paper illustration with architecture components and concrete change tasks for comparison.
Architecture
SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Purposedifferent
In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving.arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes.SAAM helps teams judge an architecture’s suitability for selected tasks and changes. It is particularly useful for examining modifiability and comparing architecture alternatives with clear reasoning.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
LowLowHighHigh
Timedifferent
45-90 min1-2 TagePreparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scopeSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope
Participantsdifferent
3-121-4Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weightingEvaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk NotesArchitecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment ViewDomain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternativesPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations
Tagsno overlap
ChangeDecisionStrategy
ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication
ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
Add more methods