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 Intervention Mapping |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 1-3 h | 1-3 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 1-8 | 2-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | SensemakingDecisionRationale | RationaleKnowledgeDecision | ChangeDecisionStrategy |