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 |  Innovation Design Sprint |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 4-5 Tage | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 5-8 | 2-8 | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |