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 Systems Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Systems Mapping arranges elements, relationships, and boundaries so a complex field becomes legible at a glance. The overview stabilizes the overall picture before detail work or steering begins. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 1-3 h | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 3-12 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | System Map, Dependencies, Leverage Points | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | Systems thinkingMappingBoundariesChange | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |