View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:arc42LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Force Field AnalysisSAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Architecture arc42 |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes. | 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. | In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. | SAAM helps teams judge an architecture’s suitability for selected tasks and changes. It is particularly useful for examining modifiability and comparing architecture alternatives with clear reasoning. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 45-90 min | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 1-4 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 3-12 | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View | 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 | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Domain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternatives |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ChangeDecisionStrategy | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality |