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 Systems 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. | 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. | 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 | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 30–60 min per interview | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-12 | 1 participant per interview | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | System Map, Dependencies, Leverage Points | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | Systems thinkingMappingBoundariesChange | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange |