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 |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Operations Barrier 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. | When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | For a risk that can only be managed through multiple layers of protection, the method examines the effectiveness of each barrier. It shows where safeguards are missing, too weak, or fail under real conditions. | 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 h | 2-4 h | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 5-30 | 2-6 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Barrier Inventory, Failure Analysis per Barrier, Action Backlog | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | Root causeSafetyIncident | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |