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 GladExpectation MappingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Start Stop Continue
| Criterion |  Agile Mad Sad Glad |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Agile Start Stop Continue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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 team wants to deliberately adjust its working behavior, it makes habits visible and assessable. It focuses on concrete changes instead of diffuse mood. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 45-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-12 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Emotion Board, Themes, Action Items | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Start Stop Continue Board, Improvement Actions |
Tagsno overlap | RetrospectiveTeamReflection | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | RetrospectiveImprovementTeamReflection |