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 Theory of Change |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Systems Thinking Leverage Points |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Theory of Change translates a desired impact into a traceable chain of change. It makes assumptions, intermediate goals, and measurement points visible before a program is rolled out at scale. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | Leverage Points show exactly where interventions in a system produce a disproportionate effect. It draws relationships, patterns, and feedback loops. The result is captured as a leverage map and action strategy. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 1-2 h | Half day | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 4-12 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Theory of Change Map, Assumptions, Outcome Measures | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Leverage Map, Action Strategy | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ImpactOutcomesSystems thinkingStrategy | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | Systems thinkingChangeStrategy | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |