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 Future Reality Tree |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 30–60 min | 1-5 Tage | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 4-8 | 4-12 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |