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 |  UX Research Personas |  Systems Thinking Evaporating Cloud |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 2-4 h | 1-3 Tage | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-8 | Internes Team | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking |