View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Dot EstimationSAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Ideal Days
| Criterion |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Agile Ideal Days |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. | 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. | 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 effort needs to be thought of as real working time, it offers a simple common denominator for comparison. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, and Capacity Caveats. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 5-20 min | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 15-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 2-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | 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 | 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 | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationEffortRisk | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | EstimationEffortAgile |