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 |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  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. | 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 research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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 | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 2-6 h | 45–90 min | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-5 | 3-10 | 3-10 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |