View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Personas |  Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis |  Knowledge Modeling Knowledge Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | In critical processes, it is not enough to plan only for the normal case. Failure Scenario Analysis looks at the path into failure and shows which failures, chains, and control gaps cause the most damage. | Knowledge Mapping makes knowledge, gaps, and transfer paths visible across a field. It fits when expertise should not just exist but also be findable and transferable. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 1-3 h | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-8 | 3-12 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | Knowledge Map, Critical Knowledge Areas, Transfer Plan | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | FailureResilienceRisk | KnowledgeMappingRisk | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |