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
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration of Leverage Points with its method-specific working model.
Systems Thinking
Leverage Points
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
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 loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting.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.When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection.
Complexitydifferent
HighMediumHighLow
Timedifferent
1-5 Tage60-120 minHalf day5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
4-125-123-123-20
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation PlanRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityLeverage Map, Action StrategyRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
ChangeSystems thinkingCapability
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Systems thinkingChangeStrategy
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods