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 |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30–60 min | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 | 4-8 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Standard Work Sheet, Deviation List, Improved Standard, Training Needs | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | LeanProcessQuality | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
