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 |  Systems Thinking Evaporating Cloud |  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. | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. | 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 | 60-120 min | 1-5 Tage | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 2-8 | 4-12 | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange |