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 Request for Comments |  Decision Making Constraint Analysis |  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. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 30-90 min | 2-6 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Constraint List, Hard/Soft Classification, Option Impact Notes, Decision Boundaries | Current Reality Tree, Core Problems, Intervention Ideas |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ConstraintsDecisionPlanningOptions | Systems thinkingRoot causeConstraintsCausality |