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
Blameless Postmortem workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
DevOps
Blameless Postmortem
Game Day workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
DevOps
Game Day
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.After an incident with damage or a near miss, the method creates a sober field for learning without assigning blame. It directs attention to the course of events, conditions, and effective countermeasures.In preparing for rare incidents, the method tests response capability under controlled conditions. It shows where assumptions about stability, roles, and recovery are too optimistic.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
HighMediumHighHigh
Timedifferent
1-5 Tage30-90 minHalber Tag2-4 h
Participantsdifferent
4-123-125-203-8
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation PlanPostmortem Doc, Action Items, TimelineSimulation Notes, Gaps List, Updated RunbooksFuture Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections
Tagsno overlap
ChangeSystems thinkingCapability
Site Reliability EngineeringIncidentLearningReliability
ResilienceOperationsIncident
Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange
Add more methods