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 Concierge MVP |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 an idea can first fail or grow through genuine hands-on support, it relies on manual work instead of automation. It shows whether user value holds up even under manual execution. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 1-4 Wochen | 45-60 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-10 Kunden | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |