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 a JTBD interview notebook with a decision timeline, forces of change and a concise job hypothesis.
Product Discovery
Jobs to Be Done
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Paper illustration with architecture components and concrete change tasks for comparison.
Architecture
SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)
Paper illustration for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
Operations
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
Purposedifferent
When switching motives and progress are unclear, it reconstructs the situation from real customer circumstances. It shows why a switch happens and what kind of progress is being sought.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.For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability.
Complexitydifferent
MediumHighHighHigh
Timedifferent
1-3 WochenSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scopePreparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope2-6 h
Participantsdifferent
5-12 InterviewsEvaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholdersArchitecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting3-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Job Stories, Outcome Statements, Opportunity ListPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsDomain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternativesFMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions
Tagsno overlap
CustomerOutcomesNeeds
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality
RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause
Add more methods