View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Getting Things DoneStakeholder MappingLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Operations Getting Things Done |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | With many open commitments and ideas in daily life, a reliable external storage system emerges. The method relieves the mind so priority and context don't have to compete in memory. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 60–90 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 1 | 2-8 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Action Lists, Project List, Review Routine | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | 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 |
Tagsno overlap | ProductivityPlanningTasksExecution | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality |