View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Consensus WorkshopLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)Risk Storming
| Criterion |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Architecture Risk Storming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | 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. | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-30 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | 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 | 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 | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation |