View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Question Burst |  Facilitation Mind Mapping |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a problem gets covered up too quickly with answers, Question Burst puts the better question at the center. The format opens the thinking space before the group commits to an interpretation. | When a topic is still unclear and too many thoughts surface at once, Mind Mapping creates an open surface for ordering them. It makes connections, subtopics, and starting points visible without fixing them too early. | 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 | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 15-30 min | 15-45 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 1-10 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Question List, Reframed Challenge, Learning Prompts | Mind Map, Topic Clusters, Open Questions | 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 | QuestionsReframingFacilitationSensemaking | BrainstormingIdeasMappingStructureFacilitation | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
