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 Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | 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 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-3 h | 5-15 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 5-30 | 3-20 | 4-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | FailureResilienceRisk | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |