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 |  Operations Process Mapping |  Operations Standard Work Analysis |  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. | With a confusing workflow that has many handoffs, the method makes the actual process visible. It shows where work is passed on, delayed, or duplicated, so improvement targets the right spots. | When the same task is done differently depending on the person, the method exposes the reliable core. It creates comparability without unnecessarily choking off needed latitude. | 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 | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 1-3 h | 1-3 h | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 3-10 | 2-6 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Process Map, Handoff List, Improvement Backlog | Standard Work Sheet, Deviation List, Improved Standard, Training Needs | 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 | ProcessOperationsImprovement | LeanProcessQuality | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |