View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Customer Journey MappingStakeholder MappingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  UX Research Customer Journey Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a user journey falls apart across many touchpoints, customer journey mapping makes the experience visible as a coherent arc. Phases, emotions, and breaks become legible enough to prioritize critical moments deliberately. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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. | 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 | Low | High | High |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 60–90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 2-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | 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 | JourneyServiceService design | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality |