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
Paper illustration for Hypothesis-Driven Troubleshooting.
Engineering
Hypothesis-Driven Troubleshooting
Paper illustration for Argument Mapping
Decision Making
Argument Mapping
Paper illustration for Kepner-Tregoe
Operations
Kepner-Tregoe
A 5 Whys working surface connects an observable problem with evidenced causes, marked uncertainty and concrete countermeasures with ownership.
Operations
5 Whys
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.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 disturbance that's hard to pin down, the method cleanly separates problem, cause, and decision. It reduces mixing when symptoms allow several interpretations.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
MediumMediumHighLow
Timedifferent
30-240 min1-3 h2-8 h15-30 min
Participantsdifferent
1-61-82-82-6
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Hypothesis Log, Test Plan, Evidence Notes, Diagnosis SummaryArgument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision RationaleProblem Analysis, Decision Analysis, Risk PlanRoot cause notes, Countermeasures
Tagsno overlap
TroubleshootingProblem solvingDiagnosis
SensemakingDecisionRationale
Problem solvingRoot causeDecisionOperations
Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving
Add more methods