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 Polarity Mapping |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Decision Making Decision Matrix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Polarity Mapping makes tensions between two opposing poles tangible, such as standardization and adaptation or control and autonomy. The method guards against making apparent either-or decisions prematurely. | 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. | When several options collide with several criteria, comparison quickly becomes subjective. A Decision Matrix makes the trade-off visible and brings weighting, criteria, and options into a shared logic. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 3-12 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Decision Matrix, Scoring Rationale, Selected Option |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | ChangeDecisionStrategy | DecisionCriteriaScoringTradeoffs |