View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Failure Scenario AnalysisLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)Pre-Mortem
| Criterion |  Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Decision Making Pre-Mortem |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | In critical processes, it is not enough to plan only for the normal case. Failure Scenario Analysis looks at the path into failure and shows which failures, chains, and control gaps cause the most damage. | 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. | In early initiatives with many uncertainties, planning quickly turns too optimistic. A pre-mortem makes the expected failure visible in advance and sharpens the view of causes, gaps, and countermeasures. |
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 | 20–45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | Small cross-functional group |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | 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 | Risk list, Mitigation plan, Assumption log |
Tagsno overlap | FailureResilienceRisk | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | RiskDecisionFailurePlanning |