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 Intervention Mapping |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen je Sprint, laufend | 1-5 Tage | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 (Scrum Team) | 4-12 | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Product Backlog, Sprint Backlog, Increment, Sprint Goal | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | AgileIterationCadence | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |