View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)Alignment MappingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)McKinsey 7S
| Criterion |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Business Strategy McKinsey 7S |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | SAAM helps teams judge an architecture’s suitability for selected tasks and changes. It is particularly useful for examining modifiability and comparing architecture alternatives with clear reasoning. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | 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. | McKinsey 7S checks whether Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Skills, Style, and Staff fit together. Organizational misalignments become visible across multiple levers as a result. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 1-2 h | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 4-12 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Domain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternatives | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | 7S Assessment, Alignment Gaps, Change Actions |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | OrganizationStrategyAlignmentChange |