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 for Standard Work Analysis.
Operations
Standard Work Analysis
Paper illustration of Decision Rights Mapping with its method-specific working model.
Decision Making
Decision Rights Mapping
Paper illustration of the Force Field Analysis working structure.
Decision Making
Force Field Analysis
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Purposedifferent
When the same task is done differently depending on the person, the method exposes the reliable core. It creates comparability without unnecessarily choking off needed latitude.In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement.In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving.When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
1-3 h90-180 min45-90 min1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
2-64-123-124-12
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Standard Work Sheet, Deviation List, Improved Standard, Training NeedsDecision Rights Matrix, AgreementForce Field Map, Change Levers, Risk NotesAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
LeanProcessQuality
DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility
ChangeDecisionStrategy
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods