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 Fault Tree Analysis |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 critical top event with several possible triggers, the method logically models failure paths. It makes visible which combinations of conditions can lead to damage. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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 | 30–60 min per interview | 2-6 h | 45-90 min | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-8 | 2-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | RiskRoot causeSafety | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |