View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Failure Scenario AnalysisAlignment MappingNominal Group TechniqueStakeholder Salience Model
| Criterion |  Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | When stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-2 h | 60-120 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 4-12 | 5-12 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | FailureResilienceRisk | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |