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 |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-2 h | 5-15 min | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 4-12 | 3-20 | 5-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority |
Tagsno overlap | FailureResilienceRisk | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion |