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 Intervention Mapping |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Systems Thinking Current Reality Tree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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. | 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. | A Current Reality Tree condenses many symptoms into a few causal chains. The method makes visible which core problems drive several negative effects at once. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 30–60 min | 45–90 min | 2-6 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 4-8 | 3-10 | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Current Reality Tree, Core Problems, Intervention Ideas |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | Systems thinkingRoot causeConstraintsCausality |