View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Responsibility PokerLean CoffeeATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Lean Coffee |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | When a group without a fixed agenda needs to get into useful conversations quickly, Lean Coffee structures the start around interests rather than a presentation. The group itself negotiates which topics get time first and which wait. | 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 | 45-90 min | 30-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-20 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Prioritized Topics, Discussion Notes, Action Items | 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 | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | FacilitationAutonomyDialogue | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |