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: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Incident Command workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
DevOps
Incident Command
A 5 Whys working surface connects an observable problem with evidenced causes, marked uncertainty and concrete countermeasures with ownership.
Operations
5 Whys
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.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.During an acute incident with several people involved, the method creates a clear leadership and communication structure. It reduces chaos when fast coordination and clean situational awareness are both needed at once.For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description.
Complexitydifferent
MediumHighMediumLow
Timedifferent
3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additionalSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scopeAs needed15-30 min
Participantsdifferent
1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 peopleEvaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders4-152-6
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 checksPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsIncident Log, Action Tracker, Stakeholder UpdatesRoot cause notes, Countermeasures
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
IncidentOperationsReliability
Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving
Add more methods