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 Empathy Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 30–60 min | 30–60 min per interview | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 4-8 | 1 participant per interview | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |