View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Standard Work AnalysisA3 Problem SolvingAffinity DiagrammingFailure Mode and Effects Analysis
| Criterion |  Operations Standard Work Analysis |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When the same task is done differently depending on the person, the method exposes the reliable core. It creates comparability without unnecessarily choking off needed latitude. | 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 research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 45–90 min | 2-6 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 | 2-5 | 3-10 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Standard Work Sheet, Deviation List, Improved Standard, Training Needs | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions |
Tagsno overlap | LeanProcessQuality | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause |