View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Operations MORT Analysis |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | 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 safety-relevant event or a system with high protection requirements, the method examines where controls failed. It exposes both technical and organizational gaps. | 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 | Medium | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 30–60 min | Mehrere Tage bis Wochen | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 4-8 | 2-6 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | MORT Worksheets, Findings per Branch, Corrective Actions, Systemic Recommendations | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Root causeSafetySystemicIncident | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |