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 |  Systems Thinking Evaporating Cloud |  Product Strategy Impact Mapping |  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. | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. | When a goal needs to be connected to several possible paths, it shows chains of impact instead of feature lists. It connects business goal, behavior change, and measures. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 60-120 min | 45-90 min | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 2-8 | 3-8 | 3-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments | Impact Map, Outcome Hypotheses, Delivery Options | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking | OutcomesStrategyBehaviorPlanning | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange |