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 RecordLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Design ThinkingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Innovation Design Thinking |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | 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 | High | High |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 4-10 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | 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 | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | 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 | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | InnovationPrototypeResearch | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |