View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Communication PlanSAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)arc42
| Criterion |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Delivery Communication Plan |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Architecture arc42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When many people need to be informed in parallel and messages would otherwise arrive unevenly or too late, a Communication Plan orders communication reliably. Channels, audiences, and cadences interlock so important information doesn't get lost. | 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. | arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 45-90 min | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 1-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 2-6 | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 1-4 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
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 checks | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence | 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 | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication |