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)Strategic, Tactical and Operational PlanningATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Agile 4Ls Retrospective |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Business Strategy Strategic, Tactical and Operational Planning |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | It places decisions and artifacts at the right level. Strategic planning clarifies direction, tactical planning translates it into programs, and operational planning steers concrete processes. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 45–75 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 90-180 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | Team members involved | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 4-12 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
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 | Planning Levels Map, Cadence Model, Planning Artifact Inventory | 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 | RetrospectiveLearningReflectionTeam | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | CadenceGovernanceExecution | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |