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 |  Agile Specification by Example |  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. | When business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | 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 | 60-90 min pro Feature | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 2-5 | 3-6 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |