View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |  Systems Thinking Leverage Points |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | 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. | 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. | 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 | Low | High | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-5 Tage | Half day | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 4-12 | 3-12 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Leverage Map, Action Strategy | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | Systems thinkingChangeStrategy | ChangeDecisionStrategy |