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 scoring table with four factor columns, a calculator and three ordered initiative cards.
Product Strategy
RICE Scoring
Paper illustration of the Lightning Decision Jam working structure.
Facilitation
Decision Jam
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
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 many initiatives compete for the same resources, it brings reach, impact, confidence, and effort into one shared ranking. It makes prioritization economically connectable.When a decision is stuck, Decision Jam loosens the knot through structured separation of problem, idea, and selection. The format creates movement without jumping prematurely at the first seemingly elegant answer.When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
1-2 h60-90 min60-90 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
3-122-104-105-30
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance ActionsRICE Scores, Ranked List, Assumption LogProblem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, ExperimentConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership
PrioritizationScoringRoadmapTradeoffs
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods