Compared with other frameworks

How the Tree of Influence relates to other ways of mapping causes and outcomes, and when to use one of them instead.

If you already know a framework for mapping causes or outcomes, the Tree of Influence will feel familiar. This page shows what carries over, what is different, and when the other framework is the better choice.

The Tree of Influence was not derived from any of these frameworks. It grew out of practice, and the resemblances were noticed afterward (see the origin story). Treat them as reference points, not ancestors.

What sets it apart

Most frameworks on this page share one or two of these traits. None shares all of them.

• The whole problem space, not one problem. A Tree of Influence maps many interconnected problems at once, without assuming they share a single root cause.
• Problems, actions, and outcomes on one map. One map shows what is wrong, what people want, and what is already being done, side by side.
• Loose arrows first, precision later. An arrow means "this influences that." Groups capture first and categorize later, so nobody needs training in formal logic to take part.
• Built for groups. A session takes 5 to 30 people from a blank board to shared priorities.
• Alive while it is useful. Your tree can be updated across planning cycles, or retired once it has done its job. See living document.
• It ends at understanding. It feeds plans and backlogs but does not replace them. See what it is and is not.

At a glance

One example, drawn several ways

The sketches on this page draw the situation used across this site: a team mapping why new hires take months to become productive. Here it is as a Tree of Influence.

The sketches use the same problems. Where a framework demands something the onboarding tree does not have, such as a single core problem, the sketch adds it. They are drawn in plain boxes on purpose, so they are never mistaken for a Tree of Influence.

Closest relatives

These 4 frameworks map causes as a network of arrows, like a Tree of Influence does. Someone who knows one of them may recognize a Tree of Influence at first sight.

Current Reality Tree

A Current Reality Tree is part of the Thinking Processes that Eliyahu Goldratt developed for the Theory of Constraints in the early 1990s. It starts from a list of undesirable effects (UDEs) and works backward, with if-then logic, to the cause most of them share.

Similarities: Both are directed graphs of cause and effect, drawn from causes at the bottom to effects at the top. Both exist to understand a situation before changing it. Of all the frameworks here, it is the closest relative.

Differences:

• It converges on 1 core problem. A Tree of Influence maps the whole space and accepts several unrelated root causes.
• Its arrows are claims of sufficient cause: "if A and B, then C." Practitioners check each one against formal rules, the Categories of Legitimate Reservation. A Tree of Influence uses loose influence arrows and sharpens them later, if at all.
• It holds only the current reality. Desired outcomes go into a separate tool of the same suite, the Future Reality Tree. A Tree of Influence keeps problems, actions, and outcomes on one map.
• It is usually built by one analyst or a small team. A Tree of Influence is as useful for one individual as it is for a large group.

Use it instead when you need to find the one constraint worth attacking, and the group is willing to test every arrow with rigorous logic.

Problem tree

Problem tree analysis is a planning tool from international development, often the first step of the Logical Framework Approach. A small group writes the core problem in the trunk, its causes as roots, and its effects as branches.

Similarities: The same metaphor, with causes as roots. A group, cards or sticky notes, and arrows of cause and effect.

Differences:

• It centers on 1 core problem that the group must agree on first. A Tree of Influence starts from everything people see, and the important problems emerge from the connections.
• Every node is a problem. Outcomes come later, in a separate objective tree, by rewording each problem as its positive opposite. A Tree of Influence holds outcomes and actions from the start, and an outcome does not have to mirror a problem.
• The metaphor maps differently. In a problem tree, the branches are the effects of the problem. In a Tree of Influence, the branches are actions and the leaves are the outcomes people want.
• It feeds a project design, usually a logical framework matrix. A Tree of Influence feeds whatever comes next.

Use it instead when you are designing one project around one problem, especially when a funder expects a logical framework.

Interrelationship digraph

The interrelationship digraph is one of the 7 management and planning tools that the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) published in 1976. A group lays out a short list of issues, draws an arrow wherever one influences another, then counts the arrows. The issue with the most arrows going out is the key driver. The issue with the most coming in is the key outcome.

Similarities: Arrows that mean "influences," drawn by a group on sticky notes. The counting maps neatly onto a Tree of Influence: a key driver is usually a deep problem, and a key outcome is usually an outcome.

Differences:

• It is meant for a short list of issues, each compared with every other. A Tree of Influence grows to dozens of nodes, and only connections someone can explain get an arrow.
• Issues have no types. Problems, outcomes, and actions look the same.
• Its answer is a count of arrows. A Tree of Influence lays out the flow from problems to outcomes, and the group votes on what matters.

Use it instead when you have a handful of issues and need to find the driver quickly. It also works on one cluster of your tree, as a quick check of which problem to look at first.

Causal loop diagram

Causal loop diagrams come from system dynamics and systems thinking. They connect quantities, such as workload or morale, with arrows marked + or -, to reveal feedback loops that reinforce or balance themselves.

Similarities: Both map how things influence each other, and both treat loops as important.

Differences:

• Loops are the point of a causal loop diagram. In a Tree of Influence, a loop is a signal that a cause is missing, and the group looks underneath it. See cycles and graph shape.
• Its nodes are quantities that rise and fall, and each arrow says in which direction. In a Tree of Influence, nodes are statements, and arrows only say "this influences that."
• Reading one well takes some training. A Tree of Influence is meant to be read by anyone in the room.

Use it instead when the trouble is dynamic: vicious circles, delays, and fixes that backfire. If a cycle survives every attempt to find a cause underneath it, a causal loop diagram is a good way to study it.

Root-cause tools

These tools dig into one problem, while a Tree of Influence spreads across many. They work well together: your tree finds the problems worth digging into, and a root-cause tool digs.

Ishikawa diagram

Kaoru Ishikawa popularized the cause-and-effect diagram, also called the fishbone, in Japanese quality management in the 1960s. The effect sits at the head. Causes hang from bones grouped into categories, such as people, methods, and machines.

Similarities: Both ask "what causes this?", and both are easy to draw on a whiteboard with a group.

Differences:

• It starts from 1 effect. A Tree of Influence starts from many problems.
• Causes are sorted into categories, not connected to each other. In the sketch, nothing shows that each team onboarding differently is why the documentation is out of date. On the onboarding tree, that arrow is one of the most useful findings.
• It has no outcomes and no actions.

Use it instead when you are investigating one defect or incident and want to be sure no category of cause was overlooked. Within a Tree of Influence, it suits a deep dive on a single problem.

5 Whys

The 5 Whys technique was developed by Sakichi Toyoda and became part of the Toyota Production System. You ask "why?" about a problem, then about the answer, about 5 times, until you reach a cause you can act on.

Similarities: It is the same question a facilitator asks to deepen your tree: "what causes this?"

Differences: It follows a single chain, while each "why" could have several answers. Different people asking the same questions often reach different causes. A Tree of Influence keeps every answer, and lets the chains branch and merge.

Use it instead when the problem is small and contained, and you need a cause in minutes. Asking "why?" a few times at one node is also a good way to extend your tree toward deeper causes.

Fault tree analysis

Fault tree analysis was developed at Bell Laboratories in 1962, for the launch control system of a missile. A fault tree starts from an undesired top event. It breaks the event down through AND and OR gates into the failures that could cause it, often with a probability for each.

Similarities: Causes that branch beneath an effect.

Differences: It is an engineering tool. Every link is a precise logical claim, and the goal is to calculate risk. A Tree of Influence is for understanding, and its arrows are judgments a group agrees on.

Use it instead when safety or reliability depends on the answer, and you need numbers.

Outcome and strategy trees

These tools start from a goal and work toward what to do about it. A Tree of Influence starts from the problems and works toward the outcomes. The two directions complement each other.

Opportunity solution tree

Teresa Torres created the opportunity solution tree for product discovery, and describes it in her book Continuous Discovery Habits (2021). One desired outcome sits at the top. Below it come opportunities (customer needs, pain points, and desires), then solutions, then the assumption tests that check them.

Similarities: Outcomes at the top, and a shared picture that keeps a team aligned while it learns.

Differences:

• It starts from 1 business outcome and works down. A Tree of Influence starts from problems and can hold many outcomes.
• Its purpose is choosing what to build. Solutions and experiments are the point. In a Tree of Influence, solutions are part of the situation being mapped, not the only answer.
• It belongs to one product team and changes weekly as experiments return. A Tree of Influence belongs to the group that built it and changes when the situation does.

Use it instead when a product team has a clear outcome and needs to choose what to build and test next. An outcome the group voted for on your tree can become the outcome at the top.

Impact mapping

Gojko Adzic described impact mapping in his 2012 book Impact Mapping. A map starts from a goal (why). It then lists the actors who can help or hinder it (who), the behavior changes that would help (how), and the deliverables that could cause them (what).

Similarities: A collaborative, visual map that links work to the outcome it serves.

Differences: It starts from 1 goal and plans toward deliverables, so it is a planning tool. Problems appear only between the lines. A Tree of Influence maps the problems in the way of many outcomes, and stops before planning.

Use it instead when you are planning a software roadmap and need every deliverable traced to a business goal. Your tree can tell you which goal is worth mapping.

Strategy map

Robert Kaplan and David Norton developed strategy maps from their Balanced Scorecard work in the 1990s. Objectives sit in 4 perspectives, linked by arrows of cause and effect. They run from learning and growth at the bottom, through internal processes and customers, to financial results at the top.

Similarities: Arrows that flow upward toward the results an organization wants, and one picture that links daily work to those results.

Differences: A strategy map describes a strategy that leaders have already chosen, as hypotheses to measure. Its nodes are objectives, not problems. A Tree of Influence maps what stands in the way, before anyone chooses.

Use it instead when you need to communicate and measure a strategy that has been decided. A Tree of Influence is good input to the discussion that decides it.

Theory of change

A theory of change starts from a long-term goal and maps backward through the preconditions needed to reach it. Interventions come last, with the assumptions behind each link written down. Carol Weiss popularized the term in 1995, in the evaluation of community programs.

Similarities: Pathways where one outcome makes the next possible, and the habit of asking what must be true before a result can happen.

Differences: It is a planning and evaluation tool, built to be measured and reported on. It works backward from one goal. A Tree of Influence works forward from many problems, and nobody is evaluated against it.

Use it instead when a program needs a plan it can be evaluated against, often because a funder asks for one.

Using them together

A Tree of Influence is a good first step when a situation is tangled and nobody knows yet which problem matters most. Once your tree has done its job, the tools above can take over:

• Run 5 Whys or an Ishikawa diagram on a problem the group voted for, as a deep dive.
• Use a cluster of problems as the undesirable effects of a Current Reality Tree, and look for the core problem underneath.
• Draw a causal loop diagram for a cycle that survived refinement.
• Take an outcome the group cares about as the starting point of an opportunity solution tree, an impact map, or a theory of change.

These combinations follow from how the frameworks work. None of them is a documented practice yet. If you try one, share what you learned.