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 User Interviews |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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 | High | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 30–60 min per interview | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 1 participant per interview | 2-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ChangeDecisionStrategy |