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 |  Team Design Team Topologies Interaction Modes |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Systems Thinking Leverage Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 several teams collaborate repeatedly, it describes the right interaction mode for each interface between them. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as an interaction heat map and pairwise agreements. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | Leverage Points show exactly where interventions in a system produce a disproportionate effect. It draws relationships, patterns, and feedback loops. The result is captured as a leverage map and action strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | Half day | 1-2 h | Half day |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | Team-Leads plus Architecture | 4-12 | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Interaction Heat Map, Agreements per Pair | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Leverage Map, Action Strategy |
Tagsno overlap | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | TeamAlignmentCollaborationOrganization | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | Systems thinkingChangeStrategy |