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 Leverage Points |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | 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 | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | Half day | 45-90 min | 60-120 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-12 | 5-12 | 4-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Leverage Map, Action Strategy | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingChangeStrategy | ChangeDecisionStrategy | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |