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)
Paper illustration of a Polarity Map with two poles and four quadrants
Systems Thinking
Polarity Mapping
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 of RAID Log with a method-specific labelled workspace.
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.Polarity Mapping makes tensions between two opposing poles tangible, such as standardization and adaptation or control and autonomy. The method guards against making apparent either-or decisions prematurely.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
HighMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope1-2 h3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional30 min Setup, dann laufend
Participantsdifferent
Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders3-121 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + asyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsPolarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance ActionsLean 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 checksRAID Log, Status Report Source
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance
Add more methods