View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Double DiamondLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Assumption SurfacingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Innovation Double Diamond |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For complex problems with a fuzzy situation, the method cleanly separates search space and decision. It first creates breadth in understanding and then focus in elaboration. This brings open questions, problem definition, and solution path into a traceable movement. | 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | Wochen bis Monate | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 45-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 2-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Solution Options, Prototypes, Deliverables per Phase | 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 | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | 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 | ProcessDivergenceInnovation | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |