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)
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
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)
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 loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting.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.
Complexitydifferent
HighMediumMedium
Timedifferent
Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope60-120 min3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional
Participantsdifferent
Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders5-121 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people
Formatdifferent
Workshop + 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 investigationsRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityLean 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
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
Add more methods

Often compared together

Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.

Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration of a calibrated five-by-five risk matrix with response cards.
Decision Making
Risk Matrix
Paper illustration for 1-2-4-All.
Facilitation
1-2-4-All
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping