View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Mad Sad GladLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Start Stop Continue
| Criterion |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Agile Mad Sad Glad |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Agile Start Stop Continue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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's or workshop's mood needs to become readable, it structures emotional signals with little setup. It makes strain, relief, and sources of energy tangible. | 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 team wants to deliberately adjust its working behavior, it makes habits visible and assessable. It focuses on concrete changes instead of diffuse mood. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 30-60 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-10 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Emotion Board, Themes, Action Items | Lean 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 | Start Stop Continue Board, Improvement Actions |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | RetrospectiveTeamReflection | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | RetrospectiveImprovementTeamReflection |