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 |  Operations Barrier Analysis |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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 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 | High | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 2-4 h | 30–60 min | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 2-6 | 4-8 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Barrier Inventory, Failure Analysis per Barrier, Action Backlog | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | Root causeSafetyIncident | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |