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 Fault Tree Analysis |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | High | High |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 45-60 min | 2-6 h | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 2-8 | 3-10 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |