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
A paper-based illustration representing Brainstorming with its core stages and visible working result.
Innovation
Brainstorming
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: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Paper illustration of Design Charrette with its method-specific working model.
Innovation
Design Charrette
Purposedifferent
When a team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development.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.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 a tightly timed design process with many participants, the method pools several lines of thinking in a short time. It brings parallel design energy without letting the discussion tip into endless coordination. This quickly produces solid directions for architecture or space.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumHighMedium
Timedifferent
30-60 min3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additionalSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scopeHalber Tag bis mehrere Tage
Participantsdifferent
4-121 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 peopleEvaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders10-50
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Idea pool, Theme clusters, ShortlistLean 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 checksPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsSketches and Concepts, Consolidated Solution Sketch, Prioritized Direction
Tagsno overlap
BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
BrainstormingWorkshopCollaborationIdeation
Add more methods