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 a branching impact map with a Why goal at the root, actor circles, How behavior changes and What options.
Product Strategy
Impact Mapping
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Gap Analysis method illustration showing its working structure
Business Strategy
GAP Analysis
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)
Purposedifferent
When a goal needs to be connected to several possible paths, it shows chains of impact instead of feature lists. It connects business goal, behavior change, and measures.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.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.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
MediumHighMediumMedium
Timedifferent
45-90 minSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope1-3 h3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional
Participantsdifferent
3-8Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders2-81 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Impact Map, Outcome Hypotheses, Delivery OptionsPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsGap Matrix, Action Plan, Risk NotesLean 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
OutcomesStrategyBehaviorPlanning
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
StrategyAnalysisPlanning
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
Add more methods