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 |  Agile Planning Poker |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |  Agile Ideal Days |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | 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 effort needs to be thought of as real working time, it offers a simple common denominator for comparison. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, and Capacity Caveats. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 2-5 min je Item | 1-5 Tage | 15-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-9 | 4-12 | 2-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats |
Tagsno overlap | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | EstimationEffortAgile |