View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations Standard Work Analysis |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | 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. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30–60 min | 2-6 h | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 | 4-8 | 3-10 | 2-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Standard Work Sheet, Deviation List, Improved Standard, Training Needs | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | LeanProcessQuality | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |