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:Planning Poker Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Affinity Estimation ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)

Criterion	Agile Planning Poker	Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis	Agile Affinity Estimation	Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Purposedifferent	When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions.	For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability.	When many tasks need to be classified quickly, it sorts them by perceived effort and similarity. It reduces the effort of fine-grained estimation for large volumes.	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.
Complexitydifferent	Low	High	Medium	High
Timedifferent	2-5 min je Item	2-6 h	30-90 min	Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope
Participantsdifferent	3-9	3-10	3-12	Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop	Workshop	Workshop + async
Outputdifferent	Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates	FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions	Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items	Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations
Tagsno overlap	EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam	RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause	EstimationBacklogRelative sizing	ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders

Add more methods