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)
Design Thinking as a learning loop: an observation notebook, a focused problem statement, different idea sketches, a cardboard prototype and user-test notes. Feedback leads to new understanding.
Innovation
Design Thinking
Paper fishbone diagram with a measurable effect at the head and six labeled cause branches.
Operations
Fishbone Diagram
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
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.For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service.When a problem has several possible contributing factors, the method sorts causes by cause areas. It prevents an initial hunch from blocking the view of other plausible drivers.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
MediumHighLowHigh
Timedifferent
3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen30-60 minSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope
Participantsdifferent
1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people4-102-8Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + 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 checksProblem Statement, Prototype, Test LearningsFishbone Diagram, Cause Categories, Investigation BacklogPrioritized 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
InnovationPrototypeResearch
Root causeQualityOperations
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
Add more methods