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 |  Knowledge Modeling Concept Mapping |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Concept Mapping arranges terms and relationships in a network that makes subject-matter connections tangible. It fits when a topic needs to be understood structurally rather than linearly. | 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 process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 1-2 h | 30–60 min | 2-6 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1-8 | 4-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause |