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 |  Delivery RAID Log |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 45–90 min | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 2-6 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-10 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | RAID Log, Status Report Source | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause |