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 Family Tree Analysis |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a series of incidents with a similar pattern, the method arranges individual events as branches of a common origin. It makes visible which conditions keep recurring. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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. | 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 | Medium | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 | 2-8 | 1-6 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Family Tree Diagram, Pattern Notes, Systemic Measures | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | Root causePatternsIncidentSystemic | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |