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 Intervention Mapping |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  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. | 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. | In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. | 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 | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 1-5 Tage | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 4-12 | 3-12 | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | CATWOE Canvas, Root Definition, Stakeholder Perspectives, Constraints |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | ChangeDecisionStrategy | Systems thinkingFramingStakeholders |