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 Expectation Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | 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 |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
