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 Experiment Canvas with a method-specific labelled workspace.
Product Discovery
Experiment Canvas
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Paper illustration of Hypothesis Prioritization Canvas with a method-specific labelled workspace.
Product Discovery
Hypothesis Prioritization Canvas
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 experiments become unreadable after the fact, it arranges hypothesis, signal, and learning goal on a single canvas. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Completed Experiment Canvas and a Success Metric.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 many hypotheses compete for attention, it brings order to their learning sequence and importance. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a prioritization canvas and a hypothesis backlog.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowHighMedium
Timedifferent
3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional30-60 minSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope60-90 min
Participantsdifferent
1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people1-5Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders3-8
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 checksCompleted Experiment Canvas, Success MetricPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsPrioritization Canvas, Hypothesis Backlog
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
ExperimentsPrioritizationDiscoveryHypothesis
Add more methods