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 C4 Model |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Operations Accountability Ladder |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | The C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | With defensive reactions to problems, the method shifts the view from justification to ownership. It makes visible which reaction stage a person or team is currently stuck on. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 1-4 h | 45-90 min | 20-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 1-5 | 3-10 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Ownership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching Notes |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam |