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)
A hypothetical failure makes concrete risks, signals, and fitting mitigations visible.
Decision Making
Pre-Mortem
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)
Architecture Communication Canvas method illustration showing its working structure
Architecture
Architecture Communication Canvas
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.In early initiatives with many uncertainties, planning quickly turns too optimistic. A pre-mortem makes the expected failure visible in advance and sharpens the view of causes, gaps, and countermeasures.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.The Architecture Communication Canvas plans architecture communication so the right people receive the right message. The method turns technical complexity into deliberate communication design.
Complexitydifferent
HighLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope20–45 min3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional60-120 min
Participantsdifferent
Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholdersSmall cross-functional group1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people2-8
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsRisk list, Mitigation plan, Assumption logLean 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 checksCommunication Canvas, Stakeholder Messages, Architecture Communication Plan
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
RiskDecisionFailurePlanning
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
ArchitectureCommunicationStakeholdersCanvas
Add more methods