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 |  Agile Specification by Example |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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 | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen je Sprint, laufend | 1-5 Tage | 60-90 min pro Feature | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 (Scrum Team) | 4-12 | 3-6 | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Product Backlog, Sprint Backlog, Increment, Sprint Goal | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections |
Tagsno overlap | AgileIterationCadence | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange |