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 |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 45-90 min | 2-6 h | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 2-5 | 3-10 | 3-10 |
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 | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |