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:Risk MatrixLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Architecture Decision RecordRequest for Comments
Criterion
Paper illustration of a calibrated five-by-five risk matrix with response cards.
Decision Making
Risk Matrix
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 two considered options leading to a decision record with a marked status and visible consequences.
Architecture
Architecture Decision Record
Paper illustration of Request for Comments (RFC) with its method-specific working model.
Architecture
Request for Comments
Purposedifferent
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.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.An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
30-60 min3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional15-45 min1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung
Participantsdifferent
3-101 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people1-33-20 Reviewer
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Risk Matrix, Top Risk ListLean 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 checksADR File, Decision Log, RationaleRFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets
Tagsno overlap
RiskDecisionPrioritizationAssessment
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
Add more methods