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 |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | When size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 45-60 min | 5-20 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 2-8 | 3-20 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | EstimationEffortRisk | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |