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 Opportunity Solution Tree |  Operations Barrier Analysis |  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 discovery keeps swinging between goals, ideas, and learning loops, it creates clear steering logic. It connects the desired outcome, opportunities, and experiments into a legible structure. | For a risk that can only be managed through multiple layers of protection, the method examines the effectiveness of each barrier. It shows where safeguards are missing, too weak, or fail under real conditions. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 2-4 h | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 2-6 | 2-6 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log | Barrier Inventory, Failure Analysis per Barrier, Action Backlog | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity | Root causeSafetyIncident | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |