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
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration for 8D Problem Solving.
Operations
8D Problem Solving
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 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 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 an acute quality or delivery problem, the method structures immediate protection and root cause work together. It keeps the situation stable while the actual cause is investigated cleanly.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumLowHigh
Timedifferent
15-30 min60-120 min5-15 min1-6 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
2-65-123-204-10
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Root cause notes, CountermeasuresRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist8D Report, Containment Plan, Root Cause Evidence, Corrective Action Plan
Tagsno overlap
Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
QualityProblem solvingRoot cause
Add more methods