Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:Mad Sad Glad 4Ls Retrospective ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Expectation Mapping

Criterion	Agile Mad Sad Glad	Agile 4Ls Retrospective	Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)	Facilitation Expectation Mapping
Purposedifferent	When a team's or workshop's mood needs to become readable, it structures emotional signals with little setup. It makes strain, relief, and sources of energy tangible.	When a sprint should not only be assessed but also learned from, it captures experience in clear learning categories. It records what worked, what's missing, and what should run differently next time.	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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge.
Complexitydifferent	Low	Low	High	Low
Timedifferent	30-60 min	45–75 min	Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope	45-90 min
Participantsdifferent	3-10	Team members involved	Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders	3-12
Formatdifferent	Workshop	Workshop	Workshop + async	Workshop
Outputdifferent	Emotion Board, Themes, Action Items	4Ls Board, Learning Themes, Improvement Actions	Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations	Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements
Tagsno overlap	RetrospectiveTeamReflection	RetrospectiveLearningReflectionTeam	ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders	AlignmentStakeholdersTeam

Add more methods