View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Stakeholder Salience ModelDecision Rights MappingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. | 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 | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min | 90-180 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 4-12 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement | 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 | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
