View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Radar |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When capabilities, maturity levels, or market positions need to be compared across several dimensions, overview is easily lost. Radar brings different characteristics into a shared picture and shows patterns faster than tables do. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 2-10 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action Areas | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | 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 | AssessmentPortfolioCapability | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
