View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile WSJF |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Delivery Communication Plan |  Architecture arc42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When many tasks compete for the same capacity, it orders work by economic impact. It makes time lost, benefit, and effort comparable together. | 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. | When many people need to be informed in parallel and messages would otherwise arrive unevenly or too late, a Communication Plan orders communication reliably. Channels, audiences, and cadences interlock so important information doesn't get lost. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 45-90 min | 1-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 2-6 | 1-4 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Backlog, Cost-of-Delay Assumptions | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View |
Tagsno overlap | LeanEconomicsSequencePrioritization | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication |