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 |  Innovation Design Thinking |  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 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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 2-6 | 4-10 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity | InnovationPrototypeResearch | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |