methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of a Polarity Map with two poles and four quadrants
Systems Thinking
Polarity Mapping
Paper illustration of an IBIS map with issues, positions and arguments
Knowledge Modeling
IBIS
Paper illustration of Request for Comments (RFC) with its method-specific working model.
Architecture
Request for Comments
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Purposedifferent
Polarity Mapping makes tensions between two opposing poles tangible, such as standardization and adaptation or control and autonomy. The method guards against making apparent either-or decisions prematurely.IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus.An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale.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
MediumMediumMediumHigh
Timedifferent
1-2 h1-3 h1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur EntscheidungSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope
Participantsdifferent
3-122-83-20 ReviewerEvaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncAsyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance ActionsIssue Map, Positions, Argument NotesRFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations
Tagsno overlap
Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership
RationaleKnowledgeDecision
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
Add more methods