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 |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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 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 | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-240 min | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 2-8 | 2-5 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Hypothesis Log, Test Plan, Evidence Notes, Diagnosis Summary | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | TroubleshootingProblem solvingDiagnosis | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |