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 Expectation Mapping.
Facilitation
Expectation Mapping
Paper board with the four ROAM fields Resolved, Owned, Accepted, and Mitigated.
Agile
ROAM Board
Paper illustration for Fault Tree Analysis.
Operations
Fault Tree Analysis
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Purposedifferent
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.When work needs to move between different states or columns, it makes that movement and its handoffs legible. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a ROAM Board and an Owner List.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.When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable.
Complexitydifferent
LowLowHighMedium
Timedifferent
45-90 min20-40 min initial, dann laufend2-6 h1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
3-123-153-84-12
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, AgreementsROAM Board, Owner ListFault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control ActionsAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
AlignmentStakeholdersTeam
RiskAgileTrackingAlignment
RiskRoot causeSafety
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods