View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Open Space TechnologyATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Stakeholder Salience Model
| Criterion |  Facilitation Open Space Technology |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a complex topic does not yet have a fitting agenda, Open Space Technology hands topic ownership back to the participants. The format suits questions that only move forward when real interest determines the order. | 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 stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 0.5-2 Tage | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 20-500+ | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Session Marketplace, Proceedings, Action Topics | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
