View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile WSJF |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When many tasks compete for the same capacity, it orders work by economic impact. It makes time lost, benefit, and effort comparable together. | 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 needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 1-3 h | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 5-30 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Backlog, Cost-of-Delay Assumptions | 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 | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | LeanEconomicsSequencePrioritization | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |