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)
Paper illustration for Eat the Frog
Operations
Eat the Frog
Paper illustration for Pareto Analysis
Decision Making
Pareto Analysis
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.The method protects energy and attention for the task that creates the largest progress and is often postponed.In many problem situations, effect is distributed unequally across many causes. A Pareto Analysis separates the few drivers with high leverage from the long remainder and focuses attention on what measurably moves the needle.
Complexitydifferent
HighMediumLowLow
Timedifferent
Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional15-90 min daily30-60 min
Participantsdifferent
Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people11-6
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncAsyncWorkshop + async
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 checksPriority Task, Completion Note, Daily FocusPareto Chart, Top Causes, Focus List
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
PrioritizationProductivityFocusExecution
PrioritizationQualityFocusRoot cause
Add more methods