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)Lean CoffeeATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Facilitation World Café |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Facilitation Lean Coffee |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When a group without a fixed agenda needs to get into useful conversations quickly, Lean Coffee structures the start around interests rather than a presentation. The group itself negotiates which topics get time first and which wait. | 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 | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 60-180 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 30-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 12-100+ | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 3-20 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
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 Topics, Discussion Notes, Action Items | 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 | FacilitationDialogueLarge groupSensemaking | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | FacilitationAutonomyDialogue | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |