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 Intervention Mapping |  Product Discovery Opportunity Solution Tree |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | When discovery keeps swinging between goals, ideas, and learning loops, it creates clear steering logic. It connects the desired outcome, opportunities, and experiments into a legible structure. | 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 | Low | High | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-5 Tage | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 4-12 | 2-6 | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange |