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)
Paper illustration for Intervention Mapping.
Systems Thinking
Intervention Mapping
Paper illustration for Future Reality Tree.
Systems Thinking
Future Reality Tree
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.Intervention Mapping translates a need for change into a planned, evaluable program. The method connects target group, determinants, actions, and measurement into a traceable chain.A Future Reality Tree shows how desired actions are meant to lead to a better system state. The method checks whether a path of change holds together logically before time flows into implementation.
Complexitydifferent
MediumHighHighHigh
Timedifferent
3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additionalPreparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope1-5 Tage2-4 h
Participantsdifferent
1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 peopleArchitecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting4-123-8
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 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 alternativesLogic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation PlanFuture Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality
ChangeSystems thinkingCapability
Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange
Add more methods