methodatlas
Compare

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 Mapping method illustration showing its working structure
Systems Thinking
Systems Mapping
Paper illustration for Intervention Mapping.
Systems Thinking
Intervention Mapping
Incident Command workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
DevOps
Incident Command
Paper illustration for Future Reality Tree.
Systems Thinking
Future Reality Tree
Purposedifferent
Systems Mapping arranges elements, relationships, and boundaries so a complex field becomes legible at a glance. The overview stabilizes the overall picture before detail work or steering begins.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.During an acute incident with several people involved, the method creates a clear leadership and communication structure. It reduces chaos when fast coordination and clean situational awareness are both needed at once.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
MediumHighMediumHigh
Timedifferent
1-3 h1-5 TageAs needed2-4 h
Participantsdifferent
3-124-124-153-8
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
System Map, Dependencies, Leverage PointsLogic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation PlanIncident Log, Action Tracker, Stakeholder UpdatesFuture Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections
Tagsno overlap
Systems thinkingMappingBoundariesChange
ChangeSystems thinkingCapability
IncidentOperationsReliability
Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange
Add more methods