View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery RAID Log |  Knowledge Modeling Feynman Technique |  Knowledge Modeling Knowledge Mapping |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | The Feynman Technique checks understanding by explaining a topic so that it stays easy for others to understand. It makes knowledge gaps visible before they become costly in everyday work. | Knowledge Mapping makes knowledge, gaps, and transfer paths visible across a field. It fits when expertise should not just exist but also be findable and transferable. | 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 | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 20-60 min | 1-3 h | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 1 | 3-12 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Plain-language Explanation, Knowledge Gaps, Study Notes | Knowledge Map, Critical Knowledge Areas, Transfer Plan | 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 | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | LearningKnowledgeUnderstanding | KnowledgeMappingRisk | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |