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 |  Systems Thinking Evaporating Cloud |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  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. | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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 | High | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 60-120 min | 45–90 min | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 2-8 | 3-10 | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange |