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 BoardLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Design ThinkingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Agile ROAM Board |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Innovation Design Thinking |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | High |
Timedifferent | 20-40 min initial, dann laufend | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-15 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 4-10 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | ROAM Board, Owner List | 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 | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | RiskAgileTrackingAlignment | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | InnovationPrototypeResearch | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |