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
A3 Problem-Solving workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Operations
A3 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 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.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
15-30 min60-120 min5-15 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
2-65-123-202-5
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Root cause notes, CountermeasuresRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistA3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis
Tagsno overlap
Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations
Add more methods