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 Intervention 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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 30–60 min per interview | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-12 | 1 participant per interview | 4-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | System Map, Dependencies, Leverage Points | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | Systems thinkingMappingBoundariesChange | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability |