It needs to be relatively clear how a user need is going to be addressed, so the activities are not like “identify in a secure way” or “write on invoice” but “provide password” and “write an invoice via mail”
You need lots of space
Pro:
very useful to get common alignment
transparent display of how activities and details and slices are connected
Contra:
As said in “precondition”, the technology/approach needs to be clear. This is because the method does not provide a help for transitioning between user goal/persona (technology agnostic) and activities that are concerned with technology and approach. The method can give the false impression that it does provide a transition there but it needs to be done elsewhere.
@jdittrich do you find the Goal - Task - Activity model by Cooper (as in his book “About Face”) helpful to get from larger goals down to (also technology related/dependent) activities? Maybe it fills the gap here?
Yes, that would be a way which is also similar to what Impact mapping tries. I find it a bit difficult that it assumes a hierarchical relationship between these, but it goes into the right direction.
