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)Problem Framing WorkshopLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Stakeholder Salience Model
| Criterion |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Problem Framing Workshop |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 works on symptoms but the real question stays fuzzy, a Problem Framing Workshop sharpens the view of the right problem. It separates observation, interpretation, and target picture from each other. | 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 stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 60-120 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 4-10 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 3-6 |
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 | Problem Statement, Scope Boundaries, Assumption List, Next Analysis Questions | 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 | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | FacilitationAlignmentDiscovery | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |