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 Systems Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Systems Mapping arranges elements, relationships, and boundaries so a complex field becomes legible at a glance. The overview stabilizes the overall picture before detail work or steering begins. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-2 h | 1-5 Tage | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 1-8 | 4-12 | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | System Map, Dependencies, Leverage Points |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | Systems thinkingMappingBoundariesChange |