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 matrix with seven SCAMPER rows, operator prompts and variations for a course portal.
Innovation
SCAMPER
Paper illustration of Design Charrette with its method-specific working model.
Innovation
Design Charrette
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 an existing solution under pressure to change, the method deliberately opens space for systematic variants. It directs attention to rebuilding, combining, and repurposing rather than only new basic ideas. This produces concrete evolution paths for products, offerings, or workflows.In a tightly timed design process with many participants, the method pools several lines of thinking in a short time. It brings parallel design energy without letting the discussion tip into endless coordination. This quickly produces solid directions for architecture or space.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
MediumLowMediumHigh
Timedifferent
3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional30-60 minHalber Tag bis mehrere TageSeveral meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope
Participantsdifferent
1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people2-1010-50Evaluation 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 checksSCAMPER Idea List, Concept Shortlist, Variation NotesSketches and Concepts, Consolidated Solution Sketch, Prioritized DirectionPrioritized 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
BrainstormingIdeationCreativityReframingInnovation
BrainstormingWorkshopCollaborationIdeation
ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders
Add more methods