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 Gemba Walk |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  Operations Standard Work Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When there is uncertainty about the real course of a process, the method brings observation to the place where work happens. It combines perception, follow-up questions, and process knowledge so decisions rest on actual workflows instead of assumptions. | For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability. | When the same task is done differently depending on the person, the method exposes the reliable core. It creates comparability without unnecessarily choking off needed latitude. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 30-120 min | 2-6 h | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 2-6 | 3-10 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Observation Notes, Improvement Ideas | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Standard Work Sheet, Deviation List, Improved Standard, Training Needs |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | LeanObservationProcessOperations | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | LeanProcessQuality |