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 |  Team Design Team API |  Team Design Team Topologies Interaction Modes |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 expectations between teams stay fuzzy, it describes how a team can be reached, used, and held accountable. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as a Team API document. | When several teams collaborate repeatedly, it describes the right interaction mode for each interface between them. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as an interaction heat map and pairwise agreements. | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | Half day initial, dann laufend | Half day | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | Ein Team plus Stakeholder | Team-Leads plus Architecture | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Team API Document | Interaction Heat Map, Agreements per Pair | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | TeamAlignmentCommunicationService | TeamAlignmentCollaborationOrganization | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |