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 JTBD interview notebook with a decision timeline, forces of change and a concise job hypothesis.
Product Discovery
Jobs to Be Done
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Paper illustration of a journey map with four connected phases, several experience lanes and a point marked for closer investigation.
UX Research
Customer Journey Mapping
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 switching motives and progress are unclear, it reconstructs the situation from real customer circumstances. It shows why a switch happens and what kind of progress is being sought.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.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.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
1-3 WochenSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope2-4 h3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional
Participantsdifferent
5-12 InterviewsEvaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders4-101 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Job Stories, Outcome Statements, Opportunity ListPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsJourney Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity BacklogLean 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
CustomerOutcomesNeeds
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
JourneyServiceService design
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
Add more methods