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
Paper illustration for Diary Study.
UX Research
Diary Study
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 for Flywheel.
Growth
Flywheel
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Purposedifferent
When experiences build up over days or weeks and a single session cannot capture them, Diary Study records the course of everyday life. Recurring triggers, moods, and habits become visible this way, beyond the sharpness of memory.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.Growth often breaks down where a reinforcing mechanism builds up too much friction. A Flywheel shows the cycle of value, repetition, and reinforcement meant to sustain growth.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
MediumMediumMediumHigh
Timedifferent
1-4 Wochen3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional60-120 minSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope
Participantsdifferent
5-201 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people3-8Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Diary Entries, Longitudinal Patterns, Experience TimelineLean 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 checksFlywheel Map, Friction Points, Growth Levers, Experiment BacklogPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations
Tagsno overlap
UX researchTrackingBehavior
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
GrowthRetentionConversion
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
Add more methods