View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Engineering Kanban |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, and Risk Communication. | 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 work sits in too many parallel streams, throughput suffers and no one sees the bottlenecks. Kanban makes the flow of work visible and limits overload so a system becomes calmer and more predictable. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | Ongoing |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 2-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Kanban board, WIP policies, Flow metrics |
Tagsno overlap | ForecastingFlowDelivery | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | FlowVisual managementDelivery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
