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 PERT Estimation |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | When size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 15-45 min | 1-4 Wochen | 5-20 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 1-8 | 1-6 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | EstimationEffortRisk |