View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile ROAM Board |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 20-40 min initial, dann laufend | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 3-15 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | 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 | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | RiskAgileTrackingAlignment | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
