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 |  Decision Making Pareto Analysis |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  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. | In many problem situations, effect is distributed unequally across many causes. A Pareto Analysis separates the few drivers with high leverage from the long remainder and focuses attention on what measurably moves the needle. | 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. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 30-60 min | 45-90 min | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1-6 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Pareto Chart, Top Causes, Focus List | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | PrioritizationQualityFocusRoot cause | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |