Skip to content

ATAM Output to Action Pipeline

Run the ATAM Output Pipeline MicroSim Fullscreen
Edit in the p5.js Editor

About This MicroSim

This MicroSim visualizes how an ATAM evaluation finding turns into organizational action, traced through six stages: Evaluation Session → Risk Classification → Risk Theme Aggregation → Architecture Evaluation Report → Architecture Improvement Plan → Ongoing Monitoring. Each stage names the output artifact it produces and the role responsible for it, color-coded by category (blue = evaluation, teal = documentation, green = action, orange = monitoring). A single example finding — a missing circuit breaker — flows through all six stages so students can follow the path from raw observation to a live fitness function.

How to Use

  1. Click any stage to read its owner, its output, and the example artifact it produces.
  2. Click Run Example ▶ to advance the example finding one stage at a time; completed stages gain a ✓ and the active stage shows ▶.
  3. Notice how the same finding changes shape at each stage — from a raw observation, to a classified risk, to a theme, to a report entry, to a planned work item, to a monitored fitness function.

The step-through is intentionally discrete so each transformation and its owner can be examined.

Iframe Embed Code

You can add this MicroSim to any web page by adding this to your HTML:

<iframe src="https://dmccreary.github.io/atam/sims/atam-output-pipeline/main.html"
        width="100%"
        scrolling="no"></iframe>

Lesson Plan

Grade Level

Undergraduate / Professional

Duration

10-15 minutes

Prerequisites

Familiarity with ATAM evaluation outputs (risks, themes) and the idea of fitness functions.

Bloom's Taxonomy Level

Understand (L2)

Learning Objective

Students will be able to trace an ATAM risk finding from its identification in the evaluation session through the risk register, the improvement plan, the architecture roadmap, and verification through fitness function monitoring.

Activities

  1. Trace (5 min): Students step through all six stages and record the artifact name and owner at each.
  2. Role map (5 min): Students list which roles are responsible across the pipeline and where responsibility hands off.
  3. Discussion (5 min): Students explain why an evaluation that stops at the report (no plan, no monitoring) fails to deliver value.

Assessment

Give students a new raw finding and ask them to write the artifact each of the six stages would produce, including a concrete fitness function for the monitoring stage.

References

  1. Bass, L., Clements, P., & Kazman, R. (2021). Software Architecture in Practice (4th ed.). Addison-Wesley.
  2. Kazman, R., Klein, M., & Clements, P. (2000). ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation (CMU/SEI-2000-TR-004).