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 Argument Mapping
Decision Making
Argument Mapping
Red Teaming method illustration showing its working structure
Decision Making
Red Teaming
Paper illustration for Fault Tree Analysis.
Operations
Fault Tree Analysis
Paper illustration for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
Operations
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
Purposedifferent
When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on.For strategic decisions with high reach, agreement and gut feeling are often not enough. Red teaming brings deliberate opposition into the situation and tests where a plan breaks under real counterarguments.For a critical top event with several possible triggers, the method logically models failure paths. It makes visible which combinations of conditions can lead to damage.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
MediumHighHighHigh
Timedifferent
1-3 h1-4 h2-6 h2-6 h
Participantsdifferent
1-83-83-83-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision RationaleChallenge Findings, Risk Register, Mitigation PlanFault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control ActionsFMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions
Tagsno overlap
SensemakingDecisionRationale
RiskDecisionSensemaking
RiskRoot causeSafety
RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause
Add more methods