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 Future Reality Tree |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 45-90 min | 1-3 h | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 2-8 | 5-30 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |