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 Leverage Points |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Leverage Points show exactly where interventions in a system produce a disproportionate effect. It draws relationships, patterns, and feedback loops. The result is captured as a leverage map and action strategy. | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | Half day | 30–60 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-12 | 4-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Leverage Map, Action Strategy | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | Systems thinkingChangeStrategy | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ChangeDecisionStrategy |