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 Strategy Value Proposition Canvas |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  Innovation TRIZ |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When the value proposition and customer expectation drift apart, it makes fit and mismatch legible. It shows where offering and need don't yet come together. | 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. | For technical contradictions or trade-offs, the method looks for solutions that resolve opposing requirements at the same time. It translates limits into an explicit picture of conflict that becomes workable. This produces not just compromises but more elegant principles. | 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 | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 1-4 h | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 2-5 | 2-8 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Value Proposition Canvas, Fit Gaps, Hypotheses | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Contradiction Statement, Inventive Principles, Solution Concepts | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | ValueNeedsStrategy | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | InnovationProblem solvingContradictionsCreativity | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |