View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Facilitation Delegation Poker |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
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 decisions get stuck between leadership and team, Delegation Poker clarifies the desired scope of autonomy. It shows how much decision-making latitude a role should actually get in practice. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 3-10 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | 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 | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | AutonomyRolesTeam | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
