View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Affinity Diagramming5 WhysLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Operations 5 Whys |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. | 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 | High | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 45–90 min | 15-30 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-10 | 2-6 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Root cause notes, Countermeasures | 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 | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |