View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Strategy MapCurrent Reality TreeLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Business Strategy Strategy Map |  Systems Thinking Current Reality Tree |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | A Strategy Map translates strategy into a few connected objectives across perspectives such as finance, customers, processes, and learning. This makes visible which capabilities and activities are meant to drive which results. | A Current Reality Tree condenses many symptoms into a few causal chains. The method makes visible which core problems drive several negative effects at once. | 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 | Medium | High | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h workshop plus review | 2-6 h | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 3-8 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Strategy Map, Objective Set, Cause-Effect Hypotheses | Current Reality Tree, Core Problems, Intervention Ideas | 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 | AlignmentExecutionGoalsCausality | Systems thinkingRoot causeConstraintsCausality | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |