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 AnalysisStakeholder MappingSAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 60–90 min | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 2-8 | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, 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 | 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 |
Tagsno overlap | FailureResilienceRisk | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |