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 MethodLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Alignment Mapping
| Criterion |  Decision Making Delphi Method |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 6-30 Experten | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Expert Forecast, Consensus Range, Assumption Notes | 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 | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | ForecastingExpertsDecisionStrategy | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |