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 Standard Work Analysis |  Agile Specification by Example |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  Operations Gemba Walk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 60-90 min pro Feature | 2-6 h | 30-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 | 3-6 | 3-10 | 2-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Standard Work Sheet, Deviation List, Improved Standard, Training Needs | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Observation Notes, Improvement Ideas |
Tagsno overlap | LeanProcessQuality | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | LeanObservationProcessOperations |