methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of a Polarity Map with two poles and four quadrants
Systems Thinking
Polarity Mapping
Paper illustration of Counter Metrics with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
Counter Metrics
Paper illustration of Leverage Points with its method-specific working model.
Systems Thinking
Leverage Points
Paper illustration for Future Reality Tree.
Systems Thinking
Future Reality Tree
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.When a headline metric could mask side effects, it adds guardrail signals against unwanted outcomes. It connects customer value, product logic, and decision priorities. The result is captured as a counter-metric list and guardrail definitions.Leverage Points show exactly where interventions in a system produce a disproportionate effect. It draws relationships, patterns, and feedback loops. The result is captured as a leverage map and action strategy.A Future Reality Tree shows how desired actions are meant to lead to a better system state. The method checks whether a path of change holds together logically before time flows into implementation.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowHighHigh
Timedifferent
1-2 h30-60 minHalf day2-4 h
Participantsdifferent
3-122-63-123-8
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance ActionsCounter Metric List, Guardrail DefinitionsLeverage Map, Action StrategyFuture Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections
Tagsno overlap
Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership
MetricsMeasurementStrategyExperiments
Systems thinkingChangeStrategy
Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange
Add more methods