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)ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Specification by ExampleFailure Mode and Effects Analysis
| Criterion |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Agile Specification by Example |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 60-90 min pro Feature | 2-6 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-6 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
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 | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause |