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 Contextual Inquiry |  Operations Kaizen Event |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 work processes are known only from accounts and the real context stays hidden, Contextual Inquiry makes behavior at the workplace visible. Observation and follow-up questions together show how people actually work, get interrupted, and improvise. | For a tightly scoped process segment with noticeable waste, the method bundles shared energy for change. It suits situations that call for fast learning loops and visible adjustments. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1 h bis mehrere Wochen | 1-3 Wochen | 0.5-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 4-12 Beobachtungen | 4-10 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | PDCA Log, Experiment Plan, Learning Outcome, Standard Change | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Kaizen Charter, Waste List, Improvement Experiments, Standard Work Update | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | Continuous improvementLeanExperiments | UX researchObservationContext | LeanContinuous improvementOperations | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |