View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Affinity EstimationLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Ideal DaysATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Agile Ideal Days |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When many tasks need to be classified quickly, it sorts them by perceived effort and similarity. It reduces the effort of fine-grained estimation for large volumes. | 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. | When effort needs to be thought of as real working time, it offers a simple common denominator for comparison. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, and Capacity Caveats. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 15-60 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 2-9 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | 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 | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats | 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 | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | EstimationEffortAgile | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |