View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Personas |  Knowledge Modeling Concept Mapping |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | Concept Mapping arranges terms and relationships in a network that makes subject-matter connections tangible. It fits when a topic needs to be understood structurally rather than linearly. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-2 h | 1-5 Tage | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 1-8 | 4-12 | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange |