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 |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Six Thinking Hats |  Decision Making Constraint Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | When a topic gets stuck too quickly in the same thinking mode, Six Thinking Hats deliberately separates the perspectives. This means facts, risks, creativity, and emotional signals get worked through one after another instead of mixed together. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-10 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Perspective Notes, Decision Inputs, Action Items | Constraint List, Hard/Soft Classification, Option Impact Notes, Decision Boundaries |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | FacilitationOptionsDecision | ConstraintsDecisionPlanningOptions |