methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
A 5 Whys working surface connects an observable problem with evidenced causes, marked uncertainty and concrete countermeasures with ownership.
Operations
5 Whys
A3 Problem-Solving workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Operations
A3 Problem Solving
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration for Root Cause Analysis.
Operations
Root Cause Analysis
Purposedifferent
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.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.When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting.When a problem keeps recurring and the cause stays unclear, the method exposes the underlying mechanism. It separates symptom, guess, and robust explanation from one another.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
15-30 min45-90 min60-120 min1-4 h
Participantsdifferent
2-62-55-123-8
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Root cause notes, CountermeasuresA3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause AnalysisRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityProblem Statement, Cause Hypotheses, Confirmed Causes, Action Plan
Tagsno overlap
Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving
LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Root causeProblem solvingQualityIncident
Add more methods