View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:McKinsey 7SPower Interest GridLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Business Strategy McKinsey 7S |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | McKinsey 7S checks whether Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Skills, Style, and Staff fit together. Organizational misalignments become visible across multiple levers as a result. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 30-60 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 2-8 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | 7S Assessment, Alignment Gaps, Change Actions | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | 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 |
Tagsno overlap | OrganizationStrategyAlignmentChange | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality |