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 of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration of the Force Field Analysis working structure.
Decision Making
Force Field Analysis
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
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 a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection.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.When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable.
Complexitydifferent
HighLowLowMedium
Timedifferent
1-5 Tage5-15 min45-90 min1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
4-123-203-124-12
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation PlanRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistForce Field Map, Change Levers, Risk NotesAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
ChangeSystems thinkingCapability
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
ChangeDecisionStrategy
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods