View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Engineering Hypothesis-Driven Troubleshooting |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Operations Gemba Walk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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 ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | When there is uncertainty about the real course of a process, the method brings observation to the place where work happens. It combines perception, follow-up questions, and process knowledge so decisions rest on actual workflows instead of assumptions. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-240 min | 45-90 min | 15-45 min | 30-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 2-5 | 1-3 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Hypothesis Log, Test Plan, Evidence Notes, Diagnosis Summary | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Observation Notes, Improvement Ideas |
Tagsno overlap | TroubleshootingProblem solvingDiagnosis | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | LeanObservationProcessOperations |