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 Fishbowl Discussion |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. | 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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 8-80 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | 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 | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
