methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
A paper-based illustration representing Service Blueprint with its core stages and visible working result.
UX Design
Service Blueprinting
Paper fishbone diagram with a measurable effect at the head and six labeled cause branches.
Operations
Fishbone Diagram
Affinity Diagramming
UX Research
Affinity Diagramming
Paper illustration for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
Operations
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
Purposedifferent
When a service experience is spread across several touchpoints, it brings frontstage and backstage together. It shows where user contact and internal responsibility must fit.When a problem has several possible contributing factors, the method sorts causes by cause areas. It prevents an initial hunch from blocking the view of other plausible drivers.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.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
HighLowLowHigh
Timedifferent
0.5-2 Tage30-60 min45–90 min2-6 h
Participantsdifferent
6-122-83-103-10
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Service Blueprint, Fail Points, Ownership MapFishbone Diagram, Cause Categories, Investigation BacklogTheme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areasFMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions
Tagsno overlap
Service designOperationsJourneyBlueprint
Root causeQualityOperations
SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause
RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause
Add more methods