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 Intervention Mapping |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Systems Thinking Leverage Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | Leverage Points show exactly where interventions in a system produce a disproportionate effect. It draws relationships, patterns, and feedback loops. The result is captured as a leverage map and action strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-5 Tage | 30–60 min | Half day |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 4-12 | 4-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Leverage Map, Action Strategy |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Systems thinkingChangeStrategy |