View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Stakeholder MappingConsensus WorkshopLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | 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. | 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 | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 60–90 min | 1-3 h | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 5-30 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | 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 | 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 | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |