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 Shape Up |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-4 pro Pitch | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
