methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Four paper stations connect system purpose, quality goals, risk cards and focused investigation with a target and gap profile.
Architecture
LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
Paper illustration for Change Analysis.
Operations
Change Analysis
Paper illustration with architecture components and concrete change tasks for comparison.
Architecture
SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)
Paper illustration for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
Operations
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
Purposedifferent
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.For a deviation after a change, the method isolates the influence of the altered condition. It narrows down which differences are relevant and which are just accompanying noise.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.For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumHighHigh
Timedifferent
3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional45-120 minPreparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope2-6 h
Participantsdifferent
1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people2-6Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting3-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
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 checksChange Matrix, Cause Hypotheses, Validation Questions, Action ListDomain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternativesFMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
ChangeRoot causeTroubleshootingComparison
ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality
RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause
Add more methods