View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Delivery Cost of Delay |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | Helps clarify scope, order, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, constraints, and sequence manageable. The result is captured as a Cost of Delay table and prioritization sequence. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | 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 | CoD Table, Prioritization Sequence |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
