View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Power Interest GridLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)Stakeholder Mapping
| Criterion |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | 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 | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |