View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  Innovation Design Charrette |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. | In a tightly timed design process with many participants, the method pools several lines of thinking in a short time. It brings parallel design energy without letting the discussion tip into endless coordination. This quickly produces solid directions for architecture or space. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 45-90 min | Halber Tag bis mehrere Tage | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 2-5 | 10-50 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Sketches and Concepts, Consolidated Solution Sketch, Prioritized Direction | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | BrainstormingWorkshopCollaborationIdeation | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |