View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | 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. | When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | 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 | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
