View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:World CaféLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Barcamp
| Criterion |  Facilitation World Café |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Barcamp |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a group needs to connect many viewpoints in a short time, World Café creates a calm alternation between closeness and rotation. It sets thinking in motion without forcing the conversation into full-plenary rigidity. | 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. | When many people can contribute knowledge and the flow should stay open, Barcamp provides a framework for self-organized sessions. The format channels energy without defining the content too narrowly in advance. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-180 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | Halber Tag bis 2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 12-100+ | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 15-200 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Table Notes, Emergent Themes, Shared Questions | 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 | Session Board, Session Notes, Community Learnings |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationDialogueLarge groupSensemaking | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | FacilitationLarge groupLearning |