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 |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  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. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-3 h | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-5 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-8 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |