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 |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Systems Thinking Leverage Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | Leverage Points show exactly where interventions in a system produce a disproportionate effect. It draws relationships, patterns, and feedback loops. The result is captured as a leverage map and action strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | Half day |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 3-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Leverage Map, Action Strategy |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | ChangeDecisionStrategy | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | Systems thinkingChangeStrategy |