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 Systems Mapping |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-5 Tage | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 4-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | System Map, Dependencies, Leverage Points | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingMappingBoundariesChange | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ChangeDecisionStrategy |