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 Outcome-Driven Innovation |  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. | Outcome-Driven Innovation clarifies customer problems, solution opportunities, and evidence. It separates jobs, desired outcomes, importance, satisfaction, and opportunity, and captures results as desired outcome statements, an opportunity landscape, and segments by underserved needs. | 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 | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 4-5 Tage | Mehrere Wochen | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 5-8 | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |