View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations Fault Tree Analysis |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 45–90 min | 45-90 min | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-10 | 2-8 | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |