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 |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Systems Thinking Evaporating Cloud |  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. | 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. | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 1-3 h | 60-120 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 5-30 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |