View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:ROAM BoardATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Strategic, Tactical and Operational PlanningLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Agile ROAM Board |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Business Strategy Strategic, Tactical and Operational Planning |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When work needs to move between different states or columns, it makes that movement and its handoffs legible. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a ROAM Board and an Owner List. | 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. | It places decisions and artifacts at the right level. Strategic planning clarifies direction, tactical planning translates it into programs, and operational planning steers concrete processes. | 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 | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 20-40 min initial, dann laufend | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 90-180 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 3-15 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 4-12 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | ROAM Board, Owner List | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Planning Levels Map, Cadence Model, Planning Artifact Inventory | 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 | RiskAgileTrackingAlignment | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | CadenceGovernanceExecution | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |