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 Dot Estimation.
Facilitation
Dot Estimation
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Paper illustration for Root Cause Analysis.
Operations
Root Cause Analysis
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)
Purposedifferent
When size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets.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 a problem keeps recurring and the cause stays unclear, the method exposes the underlying mechanism. It separates symptom, guess, and robust explanation from one another.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
LowHighMediumMedium
Timedifferent
5-20 minSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope1-4 h3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional
Participantsdifferent
3-20Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders3-81 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion TargetsPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsProblem Statement, Cause Hypotheses, Confirmed Causes, Action PlanLean 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
EstimationEffortRisk
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
Root causeProblem solvingQualityIncident
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
Add more methods