methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
A paper-based illustration representing arc42 with its core stages and visible working result.
Architecture
arc42
A paper-based illustration representing WSJF with its core stages and visible working result.
Agile
WSJF
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Four paper stations connect system purpose, quality goals, risk cards and focused investigation with a target and gap profile.
Architecture
LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
Purposedifferent
arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes.When many tasks compete for the same capacity, it orders work by economic impact. It makes time lost, benefit, and effort comparable together.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.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
LowHighHighMedium
Timedifferent
1-2 Tage45-90 minSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional
Participantsdifferent
1-43-10Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment ViewRanked Backlog, Cost-of-Delay AssumptionsPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsLean 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
ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication
LeanEconomicsSequencePrioritization
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
Add more methods