methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration for Intervention Mapping.
Systems Thinking
Intervention Mapping
Paper illustration for Argument Mapping
Decision Making
Argument Mapping
Decision Tree method illustration showing its working structure
Decision Making
Decision Tree
Paper illustration for Future Reality Tree.
Systems Thinking
Future Reality Tree
Purposedifferent
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.When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on.For decisions with follow-on paths and dependencies, a linear comparison is often not enough. A Decision Tree shows how options branch under conditions and which consequences hang on each branch.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.
Complexitydifferent
HighMediumMediumHigh
Timedifferent
1-5 Tage1-3 h30-90 min2-4 h
Participantsdifferent
4-121-81-63-8
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation PlanArgument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision RationaleDecision Tree, Option Map, Assumption ListFuture Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections
Tagsno overlap
ChangeSystems thinkingCapability
SensemakingDecisionRationale
DecisionTreeOptions
Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange
Add more methods