View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Intervention MappingExpectation MappingTeam Topologies Interaction ModesStakeholder Mapping
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Team Design Team Topologies Interaction Modes |  Facilitation Stakeholder 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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | When several teams collaborate repeatedly, it describes the right interaction mode for each interface between them. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as an interaction heat map and pairwise agreements. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 45-90 min | Half day | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 3-12 | Team-Leads plus Architecture | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Interaction Heat Map, Agreements per Pair | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | TeamAlignmentCollaborationOrganization | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |