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
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)
Paper illustration of a two-by-two Ansoff Matrix with four growth directions
Business Strategy
Ansoff Matrix
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
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.The Ansoff Matrix organizes growth options by market and product relation. It helps weigh expansion, diversification, and adaptation cleanly against each other.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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowHighMedium
Timedifferent
3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional45-90 minSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people2-8Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders4-12
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
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 checksAnsoff Matrix, Growth Options, Risk NotesPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
GrowthStrategyMarketPortfolio
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods