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 Team Cognitive Load Assessment with its method-specific working model.
Team Design
Team Cognitive Load Assessment
Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Paper illustration for Sailboat Retrospective
Agile
Sailboat Retrospective
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 a team juggles too many domains, systems, or handoffs, it measures mental overload as an organizational problem. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as a cognitive-load profile and action list.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 team wants to read momentum, brakes, and risks together, it offers an easily understandable picture of the situation. It makes drive, obstacles, and headwind visible in the same picture.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumLowLow
Timedifferent
1-2 h60-90 min45-90 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-123-123-104-12
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance ActionsCognitive Load Profile, Action ListResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsSailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions
Tagsno overlap
Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership
TeamComplexityImprovementDiagnosis
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
RetrospectiveTeamImprovement
Add more methods