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)Six Thinking HatsATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Trade-off Analysis
| Criterion |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Facilitation Six Thinking Hats |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Decision Making Trade-off 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. | When a topic gets stuck too quickly in the same thinking mode, Six Thinking Hats deliberately separates the perspectives. This means facts, risks, creativity, and emotional signals get worked through one after another instead of mixed together. | 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. | With limited resources, quality, speed, cost, and risk almost always compete with each other. Trade-off Analysis makes these tensions explicit and prevents decisions from producing hidden side effects. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
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 | 45-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 4-12 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | 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 | Perspective Notes, Decision Inputs, Action Items | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Trade-off Matrix, Criteria List, Decision Rationale, Accepted Downsides |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | FacilitationOptionsDecision | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | TradeoffsDecisionCriteriaOptions |