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
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration for Root Cause Tree Analysis
Operations
Root Cause Tree Analysis
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
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.When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection.For a problem with several suspected causes, the method builds a causal structure instead of a mere list. It makes visible how causes connect and where the strongest points of leverage lie.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
15-30 min5-15 min1-3 h60-120 min
Participantsdifferent
2-63-202-85-12
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Root cause notes, CountermeasuresRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistCause Tree, Evidence Notes, CountermeasuresRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority
Tagsno overlap
Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Root causeTreeIncidentQuality
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Add more methods