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 |  Delivery RAID Log |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 60–90 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 2-8 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | FailureResilienceRisk | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |