On having a method versus understanding the territory
Knowing Design Thinking doesn’t tell you when it stops working. Knowing TRIZ doesn’t tell you why it was never adapted for digital products. Knowing Cynefin doesn’t tell you that it navigates to methods — it is not itself one.
The difference between a practitioner and an expert is not the number of methods known. It is knowing where each method sits, what it was built for, and where it runs out.
A method without a map of other methods is just a hammer that thinks everything is a nail.
What the map is
StratoAtlas is not a guide to methods. It does not teach Design Thinking or explain TRIZ. For that, there are books.
It is a spatial representation of the methodology landscape — structured by two axes:
- YSystem level — from User Perception to Architecture & Trade-offs. Seven levels. Each is a different kind of problem.
- XAction axis — Diagnosis → Generation → Resolution → Optimisation. Four modes of work.
The intersection of level and axis defines a type of design problem. Each method belongs to one or more intersections. Some are dense. Others are nearly empty.
On the gaps
When you lay 44 methodologies on this grid, something becomes visible that no reading list shows: there are zones where the industry has not built tools.
Some empty cells are structural — the combination doesn’t make sense as a category. Others are historical gaps. The work needs to be done. The methodology just doesn’t exist yet.
The most significant confirmed gap sits at the intersection of Resolution and the architectural levels. This is where product systems generate the deepest contradictions — and where the only available tool (TRIZ) was never adapted for digital product realities.
This is not a criticism of the field. It is a map of where the field is. Understanding the gap is the prerequisite for building what fills it.
What this project is not
It is not a ranking. Methods are not better or worse — they are appropriate or inappropriate for a given problem type.
It is not complete. The map will evolve. New methods will be added. The understanding of gaps will be revised.
It is not neutral. The map was built from a specific vantage point: product architecture, contradiction resolution, and the conviction that systemic problems require systemic methods — not scaled-up tactical tools.
Who this is for
Product architects and senior designers responsible for systems, not just screens. People who have used Design Thinking and found that it describes when to diverge — but not how to resolve. Teams that keep adding features to a product that keeps getting harder to use.
And anyone who wants to see the landscape before choosing which part to walk into.