View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Request for CommentsSAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Architecture Decision Record
| Criterion |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | 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. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | 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 | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tags1 shared | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |