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 |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 4-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 5-8 | 3-10 Kunden | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |