View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  Knowledge Modeling Feynman Technique |  Operations After-Action Review |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | The Feynman Technique checks understanding by explaining a topic so that it stays easy for others to understand. It makes knowledge gaps visible before they become costly in everyday work. | After missions or project phases with unclear outcomes, the method makes visible what actually happened and what can be learned from it. It separates course, effect, and causes so experience turns into solid improvement. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 20-60 min | 20-45 min | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-5 | 1 | 3-12 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Plain-language Explanation, Knowledge Gaps, Study Notes | Lessons learned, Action items, Event summary | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | LearningKnowledgeUnderstanding | LearningOperationsImprovement | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |