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 a branching impact map with a Why goal at the root, actor circles, How behavior changes and What options.
Product Strategy
Impact Mapping
Paper illustration for Constraint Analysis.
Decision Making
Constraint Analysis
Paper illustration for Current Reality Tree
Systems Thinking
Current 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 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.When an initiative stalls, the limit often lies not in the idea but in hard or soft boundary conditions. Constraint Analysis separates these limits and shows which of them can actually be shaped.A Current Reality Tree condenses many symptoms into a few causal chains. The method makes visible which core problems drive several negative effects at once.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumLowHigh
Timedifferent
1-2 h45-90 min30-90 min2-6 h
Participantsdifferent
3-123-82-83-8
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance ActionsImpact Map, Outcome Hypotheses, Delivery OptionsConstraint List, Hard/Soft Classification, Option Impact Notes, Decision BoundariesCurrent Reality Tree, Core Problems, Intervention Ideas
Tagsno overlap
Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership
OutcomesStrategyBehaviorPlanning
ConstraintsDecisionPlanningOptions
Systems thinkingRoot causeConstraintsCausality
Add more methods