View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Evaporating Cloud |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. | 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. | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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 | High | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 2-4 h | 45-90 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 3-8 | 3-10 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan |
Tagsno overlap | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability |