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 |  Operations Fishbone Diagram |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a problem has several possible contributing factors, the method sorts causes by cause areas. It prevents an initial hunch from blocking the view of other plausible drivers. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 30-60 min | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 2-8 | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Fishbone Diagram, Cause Categories, Investigation Backlog | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | Root causeQualityOperations | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |