View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Software Architecture CanvasFailure Mode and Effects AnalysisEmpathy MappingAffinity Diagramming
| Criterion |  Architecture Software Architecture Canvas |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The Software Architecture Canvas reduces a system to the most important architecture decisions, constraints, and interfaces. It is useful when teams need a resilient overall picture quickly. | 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. | 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 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 | Low | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 2-6 h | 30–60 min | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-10 | 4-8 | 3-10 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Architecture Canvas, Goals, Constraints, Quality Attributes | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | CanvasArchitectureAlignmentWorkshop | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |