View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:4Ls RetrospectiveLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Expectation Mapping
| Criterion |  Agile 4Ls Retrospective |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a sprint should not only be assessed but also learned from, it captures experience in clear learning categories. It records what worked, what's missing, and what should run differently next time. | LASR helps development teams identify where their software falls short of important quality goals and which improvements to consider. A small group with existing system knowledge can make an initial assessment and investigate open questions in more detail. | 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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 45–75 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Team members involved | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | 4Ls Board, Learning Themes, Improvement Actions | Lean Mission Statement describing the software’s purpose, Prioritized quality goals and evaluation criteria, Risks and estimated gaps against quality goals, More closely examined findings and open checks | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | RetrospectiveLearningReflectionTeam | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |