View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:GAP AnalysisARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Alignment Mapping
| Criterion |  Business Strategy GAP Analysis |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | GAP Analysis compares the current state with a target picture and makes the distance manageable. It becomes useful when, ahead of new initiatives, it must become clear which capabilities, processes, or resources are missing. | ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification. | 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 | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Gap Matrix, Action Plan, Risk Notes | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | 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 | StrategyAnalysisPlanning | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |