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 Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-10 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |