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
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
A paper-based illustration representing Brainstorming with its core stages and visible working result.
Innovation
Brainstorming
A 5 Whys working surface connects an observable problem with evidenced causes, marked uncertainty and concrete countermeasures with ownership.
Operations
5 Whys
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
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 a team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development.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
HighLowLowMedium
Timedifferent
Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope30-60 min15-30 min3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional
Participantsdifferent
Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders4-122-61 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsIdea pool, Theme clusters, ShortlistRoot cause notes, CountermeasuresLean 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
BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence
Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
Add more methods