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 Kepner-Tregoe
Operations
Kepner-Tregoe
A3 Problem-Solving workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Operations
A3 Problem Solving
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
A 5 Whys working surface connects an observable problem with evidenced causes, marked uncertainty and concrete countermeasures with ownership.
Operations
5 Whys
Purposedifferent
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 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.When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting.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
HighMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
2-8 h45-90 min60-120 min15-30 min
Participantsdifferent
2-82-55-122-6
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Problem Analysis, Decision Analysis, Risk PlanA3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause AnalysisRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityRoot cause notes, Countermeasures
Tagsno overlap
Problem solvingRoot causeDecisionOperations
LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving
Add more methods