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 |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  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. | 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. | A Quality Attribute Workshop translates quality requirements into concrete scenarios and architecture impulses. The method brings product, engineering, and operations to the same view of desired properties. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 45–90 min | 2-4 h | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-10 | 5-15 | 2-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |