View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:A3 Problem SolvingFault IsolationFailure Mode and Effects AnalysisHypothesis-Driven Troubleshooting
| Criterion |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  Engineering Fault Isolation |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  Engineering Hypothesis-Driven Troubleshooting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | In technical failures, the visible symptom often gets mixed up with the actual cause. Fault Isolation narrows the fault space and progressively reduces which part of the system is truly affected. | For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability. | When systems fail unexpectedly, spontaneous attempts often produce more noise than insight. Hypothesis-driven Troubleshooting translates symptoms into testable assumptions and makes troubleshooting learnable. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30-180 min | 2-6 h | 30-240 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-5 | 1-6 | 3-10 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Fault Isolation Map, Test Log, Excluded Hypotheses, Narrowed Fault Area | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Hypothesis Log, Test Plan, Evidence Notes, Diagnosis Summary |
Tagsno overlap | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | TroubleshootingDiagnosisEngineering | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | TroubleshootingProblem solvingDiagnosis |