View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | 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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | 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 | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
