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 |  UX Research User Interviews |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Decision Making Delphi Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. | When knowledge is distributed and direct dominance should be avoided, groups quickly fall under the sway of their opinion leaders. The Delphi Method gathers assessments iteratively and gradually brings expert judgments closer together. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min per interview | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 1 participant per interview | 3-12 | 6-30 Experten |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Expert Forecast, Consensus Range, Assumption Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ChangeDecisionStrategy | ForecastingExpertsDecisionStrategy |