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 |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Facilitation Alignment 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. | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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 people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 3-10 | 3-12 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | ChangeDecisionStrategy | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |