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)
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 structured reflection surfaces what was liked, learned, lacked, and longed for. It is a conversation format and does not validate actions automatically.
Agile
4Ls Retrospective
Paper illustration for Expectation Mapping.
Facilitation
Expectation Mapping
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.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 sprint should not only be assessed but also learned from, it captures experience in clear learning categories. It records what worked, what's missing, and what should run differently next time.When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge.
Complexitydifferent
HighMediumLowLow
Timedifferent
Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional45–75 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 peopleTeam members involved3-12
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Prioritized 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 checks4Ls Board, Learning Themes, Improvement ActionsExpectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
RetrospectiveLearningReflectionTeam
AlignmentStakeholdersTeam
Add more methods