View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery Cost of Delay |  Architecture arc42 |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Agile WSJF |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Helps clarify scope, order, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, constraints, and sequence manageable. The result is captured as a Cost of Delay table and prioritization sequence. | arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes. | 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 many tasks compete for the same capacity, it orders work by economic impact. It makes time lost, benefit, and effort comparable together. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 90-180 min | 1-2 Tage | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1-4 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | CoD Table, Prioritization Sequence | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View | 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 | Ranked Backlog, Cost-of-Delay Assumptions |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | LeanEconomicsSequencePrioritization |