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 User Interviews |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. | 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 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 | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 45-90 min | 30–60 min | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 2-5 | 4-8 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |