View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Innovation How Might We |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |  Systems Thinking CATWOE Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | With a stuck problem carrying many implicit assumptions, the method translates observations into open, workable questions. It sharpens the problem frame without pre-thinking the solution, turning frustration or fuzziness into a search space with clear direction. | 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. | CATWOE structures a problem from six viewpoints and prevents too narrow a view of the situation. Different experiences of the system become comparably discussable this way. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 2-4 h | 1-5 Tage | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 3-8 | 4-12 | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | CATWOE Canvas, Root Definition, Stakeholder Perspectives, Constraints |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | Systems thinkingFramingStakeholders |