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 |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Innovation Design Thinking |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | Mehrere Wochen | 45-90 min | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 2-8 | 4-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | InnovationPrototypeResearch |