View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Outcome-Driven InnovationSAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)Failure Mode and Effects AnalysisLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Outcome-Driven Innovation clarifies customer problems, solution opportunities, and evidence. It separates jobs, desired outcomes, importance, satisfaction, and opportunity, and captures results as desired outcome statements, an opportunity landscape, and segments by underserved needs. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | Mehrere Wochen | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 2-6 h | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 researchers plus sample | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 3-10 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | 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 | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | 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 |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |