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
A paper-based illustration representing Kano Model with its core stages and visible working result.
Product Discovery
Kano Model
A3 Problem-Solving workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Operations
A3 Problem Solving
Paper illustration for 8D Problem Solving.
Operations
8D Problem Solving
Paper illustration for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
Operations
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
Purposedifferent
When features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight.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 an acute quality or delivery problem, the method structures immediate protection and root cause work together. It keeps the situation stable while the actual cause is investigated cleanly.For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumHighHigh
Timedifferent
1-2 Tage45-90 min1-6 Wochen2-6 h
Participantsdifferent
10-502-54-103-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority ThemesA3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis8D Report, Containment Plan, Root Cause Evidence, Corrective Action PlanFMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions
Tagsno overlap
SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer
LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations
QualityProblem solvingRoot cause
RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause
Add more methods