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)Responsibility PokerATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Delegation Poker
| Criterion |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Delegation Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 45-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 3-10 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
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 | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | AutonomyRolesTeam |