View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Acceptance Criteria WorkshopSpecification by ExampleATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |  Agile Specification by Example |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When a story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. | When business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 20-40 min pro Story | 60-90 min pro Feature | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 3-6 | 3-6 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | 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 | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |