methodatlas
Compare

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 CommentsLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Risk MatrixCost of Delay
Criterion
Paper illustration of Request for Comments (RFC) with its method-specific working model.
Architecture
Request for Comments
Four paper stations connect system purpose, quality goals, risk cards and focused investigation with a target and gap profile.
Architecture
LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
Paper illustration of a calibrated five-by-five risk matrix with response cards.
Decision Making
Risk Matrix
Paper illustration of Cost of Delay with its method-specific working model.
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.When a project faces many possible disruptions, it quickly becomes unclear which risks deserve attention first. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Risk Matrix and a Top Risk List.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
MediumMediumLowHigh
Timedifferent
1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional30-60 min90-180 min
Participantsdifferent
3-20 Reviewer1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people3-103-8
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsLean 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 checksRisk Matrix, Top Risk ListCoD Table, Prioritization Sequence
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
RiskDecisionPrioritizationAssessment
PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision
Add more methods