View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Team Cognitive Load AssessmentATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Expectation Mapping
| Criterion |  Team Design Team Cognitive Load Assessment |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a team juggles too many domains, systems, or handoffs, it measures mental overload as an organizational problem. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as a cognitive-load profile and action list. | 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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Cognitive Load Profile, Action List | 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 | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | TeamComplexityImprovementDiagnosis | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |