View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Decision TreeLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Six Thinking HatsATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Decision Making Decision Tree |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Facilitation Six Thinking Hats |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For decisions with follow-on paths and dependencies, a linear comparison is often not enough. A Decision Tree shows how options branch under conditions and which consequences hang on each branch. | 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 topic gets stuck too quickly in the same thinking mode, Six Thinking Hats deliberately separates the perspectives. This means facts, risks, creativity, and emotional signals get worked through one after another instead of mixed together. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 45-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 4-12 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Decision Tree, Option Map, Assumption List | 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 | Perspective Notes, Decision Inputs, Action Items | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | DecisionTreeOptions | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | FacilitationOptionsDecision | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |