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 Polarity Mapping |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |  Facilitation Delegation Poker |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 decisions get stuck between leadership and team, Delegation Poker clarifies the desired scope of autonomy. It shows how much decision-making latitude a role should actually get in practice. | A Future Reality Tree shows how desired actions are meant to lead to a better system state. The method checks whether a path of change holds together logically before time flows into implementation. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 1-5 Tage | 45-90 min | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 4-12 | 3-10 | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | AutonomyRolesTeam | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange |