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 |  Innovation TRIZ |  Engineering Hypothesis-Driven Troubleshooting |  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 technical contradictions or trade-offs, the method looks for solutions that resolve opposing requirements at the same time. It translates limits into an explicit picture of conflict that becomes workable. This produces not just compromises but more elegant principles. | When systems fail unexpectedly, spontaneous attempts often produce more noise than insight. Hypothesis-driven Troubleshooting translates symptoms into testable assumptions and makes troubleshooting learnable. | 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-4 h | 30-240 min | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-5 | 2-8 | 1-6 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Contradiction Statement, Inventive Principles, Solution Concepts | Hypothesis Log, Test Plan, Evidence Notes, Diagnosis Summary | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tags1 shared | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | InnovationProblem solvingContradictionsCreativity | TroubleshootingProblem solvingDiagnosis | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |