View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Polarity Mapping |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Operations Causal Factor Analysis |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Polarity Mapping makes tensions between two opposing poles tangible, such as standardization and adaptation or control and autonomy. The method guards against making apparent either-or decisions prematurely. | ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification. | For an event with a complicated course, the method breaks down the contributing factors along the timeline. It shows how conditions, decisions, and reactions together produce a course of events. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 2-6 h | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 3-10 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Event Timeline, Causal Factor Chart, Cause List, Corrective Actions | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | CausalityIncidentRoot causeTimeline | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |