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
Paper Kanban board with To Discuss, Discussing and Discussed columns, topic cards, votes and timer.
Facilitation
Lean Coffee
Paper illustration of two considered options leading to a decision record with a marked status and visible consequences.
Architecture
Architecture Decision Record
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 illustration for Fishbowl Discussion.
Facilitation
Fishbowl Discussion
Purposedifferent
When a group without a fixed agenda needs to get into useful conversations quickly, Lean Coffee structures the start around interests rather than a presentation. The group itself negotiates which topics get time first and which wait.An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable.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 controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover.
Complexitydifferent
LowLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
30-90 min15-45 min3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-201-31 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people8-80
Formatdifferent
WorkshopAsyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Prioritized Topics, Discussion Notes, Action ItemsADR File, Decision Log, RationaleLean 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 checksDiscussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationAutonomyDialogue
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
FacilitationDialogueLarge group
Add more methods