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)
Process Mapping method illustration showing its working structure
Operations
Process Mapping
Paper illustration: scenarios and architectural decisions are connected to identified risks.
Architecture
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
Paper illustration for Standard Work Analysis.
Operations
Standard Work 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.With a confusing workflow that has many handoffs, the method makes the actual process visible. It shows where work is passed on, delayed, or duplicated, so improvement targets the right spots.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 the same task is done differently depending on the person, the method exposes the reliable core. It creates comparability without unnecessarily choking off needed latitude.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumHighMedium
Timedifferent
3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional1-3 hSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people3-10Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders2-6
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + 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 checksProcess Map, Handoff List, Improvement BacklogPrioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigationsStandard Work Sheet, Deviation List, Improved Standard, Training Needs
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
ProcessOperationsImprovement
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
LeanProcessQuality
Add more methods