View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Futures WheelIceberg ModelLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Futures Wheel |  Systems Thinking Iceberg Model |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The Futures Wheel helps explore the consequences of a decision, a trend, or a strategic move in a structured way. It makes visible which first, second, and third-order effects could arise from an event. | The Iceberg Model separates visible events from patterns, structures, and mental models. This turns a single observation into a deeper understanding of why a problem keeps recurring. | 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. | 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 | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 30-60 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 2-10 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Futures Wheel, Consequence Chains, Strategic Signals | Iceberg Worksheet, Pattern Notes, Intervention Ideas | 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 | 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 | ForesightSystems thinkingSignals | Systems thinkingRoot causePatterns | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |