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 |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |  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. | 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 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 | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 1-5 Tage | 1-3 h | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 4-12 | 5-30 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |