Replies: 3 comments
-
|
When wanting to convey a relation between Solution Detriments and Problem details, laying Detriments above seems desirable because the edge can be shorter and more direct from Detriment to Problem details. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
When wanting to mitigate a Solution's Detriment, and further mitigations' Detriments, laying Detriments below seems desirable because there's a clear separation of the Detriments and Mitigations, it's easy to see things that could be further mitigated, and mitigations and their further Detriments wouldn't blend in with the OG Solution's effects. Example https://ameliorate.app/keyserj/examples-detriments-above-below-solutions?view=Repeated+mitigations: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
When Components or Benefits create the Detriment (rather than the Solution directly creating it), laying Detriments above seems desirable so that the flow of "x creates y creates z" is not interrupted by having the Detriment suddenly switch directions... but laying above does have the downside of chaining mitigations sideways, as shown in the comment above. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
When listing the Detriments of a Solution, should the Detriments be placed above or below the Solution? Let's consider the pros/cons of each approach as well as whether or not some changes can be made to improve them.
An Ameliorate breakdown can be found here: https://ameliorate.app/keyserj/detriment-above-vs-below-solution.
Example known relevant situations can be found here: https://ameliorate.app/keyserj/examples-detriments-above-below-solutions.
Here is what a Detriment looks like when above its Solution:
and here is what a Detriment looks like when below its Solution:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions