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 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Operations After-Action Review |  Operations 8D Problem Solving |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | After missions or project phases with unclear outcomes, the method makes visible what actually happened and what can be learned from it. It separates course, effect, and causes so experience turns into solid improvement. | For an acute quality or delivery problem, the method structures immediate protection and root cause work together. It keeps the situation stable while the actual cause is investigated cleanly. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 30–60 min | 20-45 min | 1-6 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 4-8 | 3-12 | 4-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Lessons learned, Action items, Event summary | 8D Report, Containment Plan, Root Cause Evidence, Corrective Action Plan |
Tagsno overlap | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | LearningOperationsImprovement | QualityProblem solvingRoot cause |