View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Dot EstimationLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Monte Carlo ForecastingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, and Risk Communication. | 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 | Low | Medium | High | High |
Timedifferent | 5-20 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 1-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | 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 | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | 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 | EstimationEffortRisk | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ForecastingFlowDelivery | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |