View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Impact MappingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)McKinsey 7SSAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Product Strategy Impact Mapping |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Business Strategy McKinsey 7S |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a goal needs to be connected to several possible paths, it shows chains of impact instead of feature lists. It connects business goal, behavior change, and measures. | 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. | McKinsey 7S checks whether Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Skills, Style, and Staff fit together. Organizational misalignments become visible across multiple levers as a result. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 2-4 h | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-12 | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Impact Map, Outcome Hypotheses, Delivery Options | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | 7S Assessment, Alignment Gaps, Change Actions | Domain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternatives |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesStrategyBehaviorPlanning | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | OrganizationStrategyAlignmentChange | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality |