View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:GAP AnalysisALPEN MethodLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Business Strategy GAP Analysis |  Operations ALPEN Method |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | GAP Analysis compares the current state with a target picture and makes the distance manageable. It becomes useful when, ahead of new initiatives, it must become clear which capabilities, processes, or resources are missing. | With an overloaded day full of too many tasks, a realistic picture of the day emerges. The method connects estimating, deciding, and buffer thinking so planning fits available energy and time. | 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 | 1-3 h | 10-20 min daily | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 1 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Gap Matrix, Action Plan, Risk Notes | Daily Plan, Time Estimates, Review Notes | 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 | StrategyAnalysisPlanning | PlanningTime managementProductivityOperations | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |