View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Shape UpLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
| Criterion |  Delivery Shape Up |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | High |
Timedifferent | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 2-6 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-4 pro Pitch | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | 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 | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions |
Tagsno overlap | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause |