View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Strategy Execution LoopAssumption SurfacingRequest for CommentsATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Business Strategy Strategy Execution Loop |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The Strategy Execution Loop helps avoid treating strategy as a one-off document. It makes visible how strategic decisions are turned into objectives, initiatives, operational work, measurement, and learning. | 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. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | 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 | High | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | Initial 3-6 h, then monthly or quarterly reviews | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 | 2-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Execution Loop, Review Cadence, Strategic Learning Log | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | 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 | ExecutionCadenceLearningGovernance | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |