methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of Shape Up with its method-specific working model.
Delivery
Shape Up
Paper illustration with architecture components and concrete change tasks for comparison.
Architecture
SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)
A paper-based illustration representing arc42 with its core stages and visible working result.
Architecture
arc42
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
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.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.arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes.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
MediumHighLowHigh
Timedifferent
6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-DownPreparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope1-2 TageSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope
Participantsdifferent
2-4 pro PitchArchitecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting1-4Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders
Formatsame
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomesDomain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternativesArchitecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment ViewPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations
Tagsno overlap
PlanningDeliveryAutonomy
ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality
ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
Add more methods