View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:PDCA CycleROAM BoardATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Operations PDCA Cycle |  Agile ROAM Board |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For an improvement that still has to prove itself in everyday work, the method runs it through small learning loops. It connects planning, checking, and standardization into a repeatable learning mode. | When work needs to move between different states or columns, it makes that movement and its handoffs legible. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a ROAM Board and an Owner List. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1 h bis mehrere Wochen | 20-40 min initial, dann laufend | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-15 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | PDCA Log, Experiment Plan, Learning Outcome, Standard Change | ROAM Board, Owner List | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | 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 |
Tagsno overlap | Continuous improvementLeanExperiments | RiskAgileTrackingAlignment | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |