View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Customer Journey MappingRisk MatrixATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  UX Research Customer Journey Mapping |  Decision Making Risk Matrix |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a user journey falls apart across many touchpoints, customer journey mapping makes the experience visible as a coherent arc. Phases, emotions, and breaks become legible enough to prioritize critical moments deliberately. | When a project faces many possible disruptions, it quickly becomes unclear which risks deserve attention first. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Risk Matrix and a Top Risk 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. | 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 | Medium | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 30-60 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 3-10 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | Risk Matrix, Top Risk List | 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 | JourneyServiceService design | RiskDecisionPrioritizationAssessment | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |