View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Customer Journey MappingLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)Customer Journey Canvas
| Criterion |  UX Research Customer Journey Mapping |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  UX Design Customer Journey Canvas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a user journey falls apart across many touchpoints, customer journey mapping makes the experience visible as a coherent arc. Phases, emotions, and breaks become legible enough to prioritize critical moments deliberately. | 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. | When a journey needs to be understood across several phases, it arranges experience, touchpoints, and opportunities into one picture. It makes gaps and friction along the user path clear. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | 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 | Customer Journey Canvas, Pain Points, Experience Opportunities |
Tagsno overlap | JourneyServiceService design | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | JourneyCustomerService designCanvas |