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
A3 Problem-Solving workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Operations
A3 Problem Solving
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
A 5 Whys working surface connects an observable problem with evidenced causes, marked uncertainty and concrete countermeasures with ownership.
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.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.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
MediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
45-90 min60-120 min15-30 min
Participantsdifferent
2-55-122-6
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause AnalysisRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityRoot cause notes, Countermeasures
Tagsno overlap
LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving
Add more methods

Often compared together

Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.

Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration for Kepner-Tregoe
Operations
Kepner-Tregoe
Paper illustration for Root Cause Analysis.
Operations
Root Cause Analysis
Paper illustration for 1-2-4-All.
Facilitation
1-2-4-All