View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Jobs to Be DoneLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)Opportunity Scoring
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Jobs to Be Done |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Product Discovery Opportunity Scoring |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When switching motives and progress are unclear, it reconstructs the situation from real customer circumstances. It shows why a switch happens and what kind of progress is being sought. | 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 opportunities need ranking by their effect, it makes importance and satisfaction directly comparable. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as an opportunity-score table and top outcomes. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Job Stories, Outcome Statements, Opportunity List | 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 | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes |
Tagsno overlap | CustomerOutcomesNeeds | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds |