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 A3 Problem Solving |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. | 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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-5 Tage | 2-6 h | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-5 | Nutzertraffic | 3-10 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |