View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Scrum |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  Agile Specification by Example |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a team needs to work in a fixed delivery rhythm, it stabilizes cadence, responsibility, and feedback loops. It makes collaboration reliable across sprint boundaries. | 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. | When business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen je Sprint, laufend | 2-4 h | 60-90 min pro Feature | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 (Scrum Team) | 3-8 | 3-6 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Product Backlog, Sprint Backlog, Increment, Sprint Goal | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan |
Tagsno overlap | AgileIterationCadence | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability |