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 |  Agile ROAM Board |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |  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. | When work needs to move between different states or columns, it makes that movement and its handoffs legible. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a ROAM Board and an Owner List. | 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. | 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 | Low | High | High |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 20-40 min initial, dann laufend | 1-5 Tage | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-15 | 4-12 | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | ROAM Board, Owner List | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | RiskAgileTrackingAlignment | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange |