View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Force Field AnalysisPre-MortemSAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Decision Making Pre-Mortem |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | 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 | Low | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 20–45 min | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | Small cross-functional group | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Risk list, Mitigation plan, Assumption log | 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 | ChangeDecisionStrategy | RiskDecisionFailurePlanning | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |