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 Smoke Test |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  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 demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all. | 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 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 | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 1-5 Tage | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |