View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Alignment MappingLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Force Field AnalysisATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | 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. | In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. | 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 | 1-2 h | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 45-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 3-12 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | 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 | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | 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 | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ChangeDecisionStrategy | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |