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 four-column Kanban board with limited ongoing work, a visible blocker and a review loop.
Engineering
Kanban
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Paper illustration for Root Cause Analysis.
Operations
Root Cause 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 work sits in too many parallel streams, throughput suffers and no one sees the bottlenecks. Kanban makes the flow of work visible and limits overload so a system becomes calmer and more predictable.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 problem keeps recurring and the cause stays unclear, the method exposes the underlying mechanism. It separates symptom, guess, and robust explanation from one another.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
OngoingSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope1-4 h3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional
Participantsdifferent
2-12Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders3-81 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people
Formatsame
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Kanban board, WIP policies, Flow metricsPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsProblem Statement, Cause Hypotheses, Confirmed Causes, Action PlanLean 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
FlowVisual managementDelivery
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
Root causeProblem solvingQualityIncident
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
Add more methods