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)Three-Point EstimationATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)PERT Estimation
| Criterion |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Decision Making Three-Point Estimation |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | A single estimate for effort, time, or risk often looks too smooth for the real uncertainty behind it. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, and Assumption Notes. | 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. | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 10-30 min je Item | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 1-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1-8 |
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 | Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption Notes | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | EstimationUncertaintyForecasting | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | EstimationUncertaintyRisk |