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 PDCA Cycle |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Growth A/B Testing |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For an improvement that still has to prove itself in everyday work, the method runs it through small learning loops. It connects planning, checking, and standardization into a repeatable learning mode. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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. | 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 | Low | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1 h bis mehrere Wochen | 45–90 min | 1-4 Wochen | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-10 | 1-6 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | PDCA Log, Experiment Plan, Learning Outcome, Standard Change | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | Continuous improvementLeanExperiments | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |