View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  Operations After-Action Review |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. | After missions or project phases with unclear outcomes, the method makes visible what actually happened and what can be learned from it. It separates course, effect, and causes so experience turns into solid improvement. | A Future Reality Tree shows how desired actions are meant to lead to a better system state. The method checks whether a path of change holds together logically before time flows into implementation. | Intervention Mapping translates a need for change into a planned, evaluable program. The method connects target group, determinants, actions, and measurement into a traceable chain. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | High |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 20-45 min | 2-4 h | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 2-5 | 3-12 | 3-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Lessons learned, Action items, Event summary | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan |
Tagsno overlap | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | LearningOperationsImprovement | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability |