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 for Failure Scenario Analysis.
Engineering
Failure Scenario Analysis
Paper illustration for Future Reality Tree.
Systems Thinking
Future Reality Tree
Systems Mapping method illustration showing its working structure
Systems Thinking
Systems 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.In critical processes, it is not enough to plan only for the normal case. Failure Scenario Analysis looks at the path into failure and shows which failures, chains, and control gaps cause the most damage.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.Systems Mapping arranges elements, relationships, and boundaries so a complex field becomes legible at a glance. The overview stabilizes the overall picture before detail work or steering begins.
Complexitydifferent
HighMediumHighMedium
Timedifferent
1-5 Tage1-3 h2-4 h1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
4-123-83-83-12
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation PlanFailure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response ActionsFuture Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved InjectionsSystem Map, Dependencies, Leverage Points
Tagsno overlap
ChangeSystems thinkingCapability
FailureResilienceRisk
Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange
Systems thinkingMappingBoundariesChange
Add more methods