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 |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Decision Making Cynefin Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 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. | When problems are unclear, chaotic, or only seemingly familiar, standard recipes fall short. A Cynefin Workshop sorts situations by the nature of their problem and connects them with matching action logic. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 1-3 h | 60-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 2-8 | 1-8 | 4-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Cynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes |
Tagsno overlap | FailureResilienceRisk | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ComplexitySensemakingDecision |