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 User Interviews |  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. | 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. | 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 | High | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-5 Tage | 30–60 min per interview | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 4-12 | 1 participant per interview | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange |