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 User Interviews |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Operations Barrier 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. | 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 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 30–60 min per interview | 30–60 min | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1 participant per interview | 4-8 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Barrier Inventory, Failure Analysis per Barrier, Action Backlog |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Root causeSafetyIncident |