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 Fault Tree Analysis |  Operations MORT 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. | For a critical top event with several possible triggers, the method logically models failure paths. It makes visible which combinations of conditions can lead to damage. | 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. | 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 | High | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 2-6 h | Mehrere Tage bis Wochen | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-8 | 2-6 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | MORT Worksheets, Findings per Branch, Corrective Actions, Systemic Recommendations | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | RiskRoot causeSafety | Root causeSafetySystemicIncident | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |