View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Question BurstLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Mind MappingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Facilitation Question Burst |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Facilitation Mind Mapping |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a problem gets covered up too quickly with answers, Question Burst puts the better question at the center. The format opens the thinking space before the group commits to an interpretation. | 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 topic is still unclear and too many thoughts surface at once, Mind Mapping creates an open surface for ordering them. It makes connections, subtopics, and starting points visible without fixing them too early. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 15-30 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 15-45 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 1-10 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Question List, Reframed Challenge, Learning Prompts | 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 | Mind Map, Topic Clusters, Open Questions | 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 | QuestionsReframingFacilitationSensemaking | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | BrainstormingIdeasMappingStructureFacilitation | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |