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)
Paper illustration of a journey map with four connected phases, several experience lanes and a point marked for closer investigation.
UX Research
Customer Journey Mapping
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)
A paper-based illustration representing Customer Journey Canvas with its core stages and visible working result.
UX Design
Customer Journey Canvas
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 user journey falls apart across many touchpoints, customer journey mapping makes the experience visible as a coherent arc. Phases, emotions, and breaks become legible enough to prioritize critical moments deliberately.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 a journey needs to be understood across several phases, it arranges experience, touchpoints, and opportunities into one picture. It makes gaps and friction along the user path clear.
Complexitydifferent
HighMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope2-4 h3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders4-101 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people3-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsJourney Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity BacklogLean 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 checksCustomer Journey Canvas, Pain Points, Experience Opportunities
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
JourneyServiceService design
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
JourneyCustomerService designCanvas
Add more methods