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 Design Service Blueprinting |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  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 service experience is spread across several touchpoints, it brings frontstage and backstage together. It shows where user contact and internal responsibility must fit. | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. | 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 0.5-2 Tage | 45-90 min | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 6-12 | 2-5 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Service Blueprint, Fail Points, Ownership Map | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Service designOperationsJourneyBlueprint | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |