View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Polarity MappingFuture Reality TreeLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Polarity Mapping |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Polarity Mapping makes tensions between two opposing poles tangible, such as standardization and adaptation or control and autonomy. The method guards against making apparent either-or decisions prematurely. | 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. | 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 | High | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 2-4 h | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-8 | 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 | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | 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 | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality |