View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:How Might WeContext CanvasATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Innovation How Might We |  Product Discovery Context Canvas |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | With a stuck problem carrying many implicit assumptions, the method translates observations into open, workable questions. It sharpens the problem frame without pre-thinking the solution, turning frustration or fuzziness into a search space with clear direction. | When an environment of users, systems, and constraints is hard to grasp, it puts the context compactly on the table. It creates a clear reading of influence, boundary, and dependency. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 45-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 3-10 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Context canvas, Open questions, Shared context notes | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | 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 |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | ContextFramingRequirementsCanvas | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |