View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:NoEstimatesLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Monte Carlo ForecastingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Agile NoEstimates |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When estimating slows a team down more than it helps, it shifts the focus to flow, small slices, and real lead time. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, and Slicing Rules. | 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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, and Risk Communication. | 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 | Medium | Medium | High | High |
Timedifferent | laufend | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 1-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | 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 | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ForecastingFlowDelivery | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |