View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Request for CommentsATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)OODA LoopLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Decision Making OODA Loop |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | In dynamic situations, decisions become outdated faster than they can be prepared. The OODA Loop holds observing, orienting, deciding, and acting together as a recurring rhythm so reaction does not slide into inertia. | 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 | Medium | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 15-60 min je Zyklus | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1-8 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Situation Assessment, Decision Loop, Action Updates | 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 | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | DecisionChangeLearningStrategy | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |