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 |  Operations Standard Work Analysis |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 the same task is done differently depending on the person, the method exposes the reliable core. It creates comparability without unnecessarily choking off needed latitude. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 1-3 h | 2-6 h |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-10 | 2-6 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Process Map, Handoff List, Improvement Backlog | Standard Work Sheet, Deviation List, Improved Standard, Training Needs | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | ProcessOperationsImprovement | LeanProcessQuality | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause |