View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | In critical processes, it is not enough to plan only for the normal case. Failure Scenario Analysis looks at the path into failure and shows which failures, chains, and control gaps cause the most damage. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | When size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-4 Wochen | 5-20 min | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1-6 | 3-20 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | FailureResilienceRisk | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | EstimationEffortRisk | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |