View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Delphi MethodATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)arc42LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Decision Making Delphi Method |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Architecture arc42 |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When knowledge is distributed and direct dominance should be avoided, groups quickly fall under the sway of their opinion leaders. The Delphi Method gathers assessments iteratively and gradually brings expert judgments closer 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 1-2 Tage | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 6-30 Experten | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1-4 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Expert Forecast, Consensus Range, Assumption Notes | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | 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 |
Tagsno overlap | ForecastingExpertsDecisionStrategy | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |