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)RolestormingRound Robin BrainstormingLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Innovation Rolestorming |  Innovation Round Robin Brainstorming |  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 a search for ideas stalls, switching roles helps people step outside their own perspective and activate new logics of action. The method reduces habit because contributions arise from a different stance. This brings unfamiliar, often fitting solution approaches into play. | With unevenly distributed speaking time, the method brings every person into the contribution one after another. It prevents early voices from setting the direction while still producing a shared idea space. This makes participation plannable and the team's diversity visible. | 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 | High | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 30-60 min | 20-45 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-12 | 4-10 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + 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 | Rollenkarten, Ideenpool pro Rolle, Konsolidierte Shortlist | Idea List, Cluster, Shortlist | 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 |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | BrainstormingIdeationCreativity | BrainstormingIdeationFacilitationInclusionCreativity | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |