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 of Experiment Canvas with a method-specific labelled workspace.
Product Discovery
Experiment Canvas
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
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)
Paper illustration of a Test Card with four fields for hypothesis, test, metric, and success threshold.
Product Discovery
Test Card
Purposedifferent
When experiments become unreadable after the fact, it arranges hypothesis, signal, and learning goal on a single canvas. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Completed Experiment Canvas and a Success Metric.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.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.The Test Card turns a critical assumption into a testable claim and specifies in advance which result counts as success.
Complexitydifferent
LowHighMediumLow
Timedifferent
30-60 minSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional20-35 min
Participantsdifferent
1-5Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people1-5
Formatsame
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Completed Experiment Canvas, Success MetricPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsLean 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 checksTest Card with a pre-set threshold
Tagsno overlap
ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis
Add more methods