View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Team Design Team Topologies Interaction Modes |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When several teams collaborate repeatedly, it describes the right interaction mode for each interface between them. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as an interaction heat map and pairwise agreements. | 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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | 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 | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | Half day | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | Team-Leads plus Architecture | 2-5 | 3-12 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interaction Heat Map, Agreements per Pair | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | TeamAlignmentCollaborationOrganization | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |