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 ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Affinity Estimation

Criterion	Agile Planning Poker	Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis	Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)	Agile Affinity Estimation
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.	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 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.
Complexitydifferent	Low	High	High	Medium
Timedifferent	2-5 min je Item	2-6 h	Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope	30-90 min
Participantsdifferent	3-9	3-10	Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders	3-12
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop	Workshop + async	Workshop
Outputdifferent	Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates	FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions	Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations	Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items
Tagsno overlap	EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam	RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause	ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders	EstimationBacklogRelative sizing

Add more methods