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 Root Cause Analysis |  Operations Barrier 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. | 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. | When a problem keeps recurring and the cause stays unclear, the method exposes the underlying mechanism. It separates symptom, guess, and robust explanation from one another. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 2-6 h | 1-4 h | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-8 | 3-8 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Problem Statement, Cause Hypotheses, Confirmed Causes, Action Plan | Barrier Inventory, Failure Analysis per Barrier, Action Backlog |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | RiskRoot causeSafety | Root causeProblem solvingQualityIncident | Root causeSafetyIncident |