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 with architecture components and concrete change tasks for comparison.
Architecture
SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)
A paper-based illustration representing Bounded Context Canvas with its core stages and visible working result.
Domain Modeling
Bounded Context Canvas
Context Map workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Domain Modeling
Context Map
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.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 business context is still loosely outlined, it shapes language, responsibility, and integration space. It clarifies what belongs together and where a boundary needs to hold.When several contexts need to talk to each other, it makes their relationships and dependencies legible. It helps sort integration pressure and responsibilities across system boundaries.
Complexitydifferent
MediumHighMediumMedium
Timedifferent
3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additionalPreparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope1-3 h1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 peopleArchitecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting3-82-8
Formatsame
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + 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 checksDomain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternativesContext Canvas, Glossary, Integration NotesContext Map, Integration Patterns, Boundary Notes
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality
Domain-Driven DesignBoundariesModeling
Domain-Driven DesignBoundariesStrategy
Add more methods