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 |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Systems Thinking Leverage Points |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | Half day | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-12 | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Leverage Map, Action Strategy | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | Systems thinkingChangeStrategy | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |