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 Future Reality Tree |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making Decision Rights 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. | 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. | 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. | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 2-4 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 3-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility |