View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | In critical processes, it is not enough to plan only for the normal case. Failure Scenario Analysis looks at the path into failure and shows which failures, chains, and control gaps cause the most 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 4-12 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | FailureResilienceRisk | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |