View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Value Stream MappingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Monte Carlo ForecastingLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Delivery Value Stream Mapping |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When delivery work dissolves into wait times, handoffs, and hidden effort, Value Stream Mapping makes the actual flow visible. The method exposes bottlenecks, idle time, and feedback loops so lead time and improvement levers become tangible. | 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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, and Risk Communication. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1-8 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Current-state map, Future-state map, Bottleneck list | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | 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 |
Tagsno overlap | LeanFlowWasteDelivery | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ForecastingFlowDelivery | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |