View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Architecture Decision RecordExpectation MappingLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 45-90 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 3-12 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | 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 |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
