View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:PretotypingFailure Mode and Effects AnalysisSAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Pretotyping |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Pretotyping clarifies whether a customer problem and solution idea create enough real demand. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence, and captures the result as a pretotyping sketch, test setup, and conversion data. | 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. | 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. | 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 | Low | High | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | Stunden bis wenige Tage | 2-6 h | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 1-4 | 3-10 | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Pretotyping sketch, Test setup, Conversion data, Go or no-go decision | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | 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 | 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 | ValidationDemandMVP | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |