methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration for Intervention Mapping.
Systems Thinking
Intervention Mapping
Paper illustration of two people facing each other, speech bubbles and an open interview notebook.
UX Research
User Interviews
Paper illustration for Change Analysis.
Operations
Change Analysis
Paper illustration for Current Reality Tree
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 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.For a deviation after a change, the method isolates the influence of the altered condition. It narrows down which differences are relevant and which are just accompanying noise.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
HighLowMediumHigh
Timedifferent
1-5 Tage30–60 min per interview45-120 min2-6 h
Participantsdifferent
4-121 participant per interview2-63-8
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation PlanInterview Notes, Themes, Insight SummaryChange Matrix, Cause Hypotheses, Validation Questions, Action ListCurrent Reality Tree, Core Problems, Intervention Ideas
Tagsno overlap
ChangeSystems thinkingCapability
QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery
ChangeRoot causeTroubleshootingComparison
Systems thinkingRoot causeConstraintsCausality
Add more methods