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)Outcome-Driven InnovationLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)RAID Log
| Criterion |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Delivery RAID Log |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Outcome-Driven Innovation clarifies customer problems, solution opportunities, and evidence. It separates jobs, desired outcomes, importance, satisfaction, and opportunity, and captures results as desired outcome statements, an opportunity landscape, and segments by underserved needs. | 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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | Mehrere Wochen | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 30 min Setup, dann laufend |
Participantsdifferent | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | 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 | RAID Log, Status Report Source |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance |