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 |  UX Research Personas |
|---|---|---|---|
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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-5 Tage | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 4-12 | Internes Team |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
