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 GIST Planning with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
GIST Planning
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 Counter Metrics with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
Counter Metrics
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Purposedifferent
GIST Planning helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities. It links customer value, product logic, and decision priorities, and captures the result as goals, an idea bank, and a step-project list.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 a headline metric could mask side effects, it adds guardrail signals against unwanted outcomes. It connects customer value, product logic, and decision priorities. The result is captured as a counter-metric list and guardrail definitions.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
MediumMediumLowHigh
Timedifferent
Wochen bis Monate je Goal3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional30-60 minSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope
Participantsdifferent
3-101 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people2-6Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders
Formatsame
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Goals, Idea bank, Step-project list, Tasks, Learning reportsLean 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 checksCounter Metric List, Guardrail DefinitionsPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations
Tagsno overlap
RoadmapOutcomesPlanningExperiments
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
MetricsMeasurementStrategyExperiments
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
Add more methods