View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Specification by ExampleLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
| Criterion |  Agile Specification by Example |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | 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. | 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 |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 2-6 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | 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 | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
