View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Radar |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When capabilities, maturity levels, or market positions need to be compared across several dimensions, overview is easily lost. Radar brings different characteristics into a shared picture and shows patterns faster than tables do. | 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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-10 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action Areas | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | AssessmentPortfolioCapability | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
