View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Shape UpATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Power Interest Grid
| Criterion |  Delivery Shape Up |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | 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. | 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 many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-4 pro Pitch | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | 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 | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |