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 Rich Picture |  Agile ROAM Board |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | A Rich Picture brings an unclear situation onto a shared drawing. It captures actors, tensions, information flows, and blind spots before the team jumps to solutions too early. | When work needs to move between different states or columns, it makes that movement and its handoffs legible. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a ROAM Board and an Owner List. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 30-90 min | 20-40 min initial, dann laufend | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 2-10 | 3-15 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Rich Picture, Problem Framing Notes | ROAM Board, Owner List | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | Systems thinkingSoft systemsFramingVisualization | RiskAgileTrackingAlignment | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |