View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. | 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 size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 5-20 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets |
Tags1 shared | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | EstimationEffortRisk |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
