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)Problem InterviewARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)Assumption Surfacing
| Criterion |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Product Discovery Problem Interview |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 the picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution. | ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 30-60 min je Interview | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 5-12 Interviews | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | 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 | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |