View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Lean Coffee |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a group without a fixed agenda needs to get into useful conversations quickly, Lean Coffee structures the start around interests rather than a presentation. The group itself negotiates which topics get time first and which wait. | 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 a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 8-80 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized Topics, Discussion Notes, Action Items | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationAutonomyDialogue | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | FacilitationDialogueLarge group |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
