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 AnalysisRAID LogSAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Delivery RAID Log |  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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | 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 | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | RAID Log, Status Report Source | 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 | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |