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 Personas |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | 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. | DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 1-3 Tage | 45-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | Internes Team | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | ChangeDecisionStrategy | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |