View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:ICE ScoringATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Request for CommentsLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Product Strategy ICE Scoring |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When ideas need sorting quickly, it condenses impact, confidence, and effort into one compact score. It connects customer value, product logic, and decision priorities. The result is captured as an ICE table and top-ideas list. | 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. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | 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 | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-20 Reviewer | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | ICE Table, Top Idea List | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | 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 | PrioritizationScoringGrowthDecision | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |