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 Futures Wheel |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The Futures Wheel helps explore the consequences of a decision, a trend, or a strategic move in a structured way. It makes visible which first, second, and third-order effects could arise from an event. | SAAM helps teams judge an architecture’s suitability for selected tasks and changes. It is particularly useful for examining modifiability and comparing architecture alternatives with clear reasoning. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | High |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 4-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Futures Wheel, Consequence Chains, Strategic Signals | Domain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternatives | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan |
Tagsno overlap | ForesightSystems thinkingSignals | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
