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 MORT 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 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 safety-relevant event or a system with high protection requirements, the method examines where controls failed. It exposes both technical and organizational gaps. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 h | 2-4 h | Mehrere Tage bis Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 5-30 | 2-6 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Barrier Inventory, Failure Analysis per Barrier, Action Backlog | MORT Worksheets, Findings per Branch, Corrective Actions, Systemic Recommendations |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | Root causeSafetyIncident | Root causeSafetySystemicIncident |