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 User Interviews |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  Systems Thinking Evaporating Cloud |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. | 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 | Low | High | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 2-4 h | 60-120 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-8 | 2-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability |