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 |  Operations Process Mapping |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Operations Gemba Walk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | With a confusing workflow that has many handoffs, the method makes the actual process visible. It shows where work is passed on, delayed, or duplicated, so improvement targets the right spots. | 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 there is uncertainty about the real course of a process, the method brings observation to the place where work happens. It combines perception, follow-up questions, and process knowledge so decisions rest on actual workflows instead of assumptions. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 30–60 min | 30-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-10 | 4-8 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Process Map, Handoff List, Improvement Backlog | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Observation Notes, Improvement Ideas |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | ProcessOperationsImprovement | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | LeanObservationProcessOperations |