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 Thinking |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  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. | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | 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. | 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 | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 1-5 Tage | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 4-10 | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | InnovationPrototypeResearch | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |