View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Business Strategy GAP Analysis |  Operations Root Cause Analysis |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When a problem keeps recurring and the cause stays unclear, the method exposes the underlying mechanism. It separates symptom, guess, and robust explanation from one another. | 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. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-4 h | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 3-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Gap Matrix, Action Plan, Risk Notes | Problem Statement, Cause Hypotheses, Confirmed Causes, Action Plan | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | StrategyAnalysisPlanning | Root causeProblem solvingQualityIncident | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |