View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)User InterviewsLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Assumption Surfacing
| Criterion |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  UX Research User Interviews |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 30–60 min per interview | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 1 participant per interview | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | 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 | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | 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 | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |