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 Intervention Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. | 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. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 1-5 Tage | 60–90 min | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 4-12 | 2-8 | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections |
Tagsno overlap | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange |