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 Empathy Mapping |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. | For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 45-90 min | 2-6 h | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 2-5 | 3-10 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |