View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Problem Framing WorkshopStakeholder Salience ModelATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Facilitation Problem Framing Workshop |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a team works on symptoms but the real question stays fuzzy, a Problem Framing Workshop sharpens the view of the right problem. It separates observation, interpretation, and target picture from each other. | 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. | 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 | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 60-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 3-6 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Scope Boundaries, Assumption List, Next Analysis Questions | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | 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 | FacilitationAlignmentDiscovery | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
