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)
Three Amigos method illustration showing its working structure
Agile
Three Amigos
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 Acceptance Criteria Workshop with a method-specific labelled workspace.
Agile
Acceptance Criteria Workshop
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 story, test, and implementation could drift apart, it brings business perspective, engineering, and quality together early. It prevents a story from being read differently only late in the process.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 a story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update.
Complexitydifferent
HighLowMediumLow
Timedifferent
Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope15-30 min3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional20-40 min pro Story
Participantsdifferent
Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders31 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people3-6
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsClarified Story, Test Examples, Open QuestionsLean 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 checksAcceptance Criteria, Story Update
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development
Add more methods