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 fishbone diagram with a measurable effect at the head and six labeled cause branches.
Operations
Fishbone Diagram
A3 Problem-Solving workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Operations
A3 Problem Solving
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 problem has several possible contributing factors, the method sorts causes by cause areas. It prevents an initial hunch from blocking the view of other plausible drivers.For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together.
Complexitydifferent
HighMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional30-60 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people2-82-5
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + 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 checksFishbone Diagram, Cause Categories, Investigation BacklogA3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
Root causeQualityOperations
LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations
Add more methods