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 |  Knowledge Modeling Teach-back |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Knowledge Modeling Feynman 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. | Teach-back checks whether an explanation actually got through to the other person. The method makes misunderstandings visible early and strengthens shared understanding in advisory and learning situations. | 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. | The Feynman Technique checks understanding by explaining a topic so that it stays easy for others to understand. It makes knowledge gaps visible before they become costly in everyday work. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 5-20 min | 45-90 min | 20-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 2-8 | 2-8 | 1 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | Understanding Check, Clarification Notes, Learning Gaps | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Plain-language Explanation, Knowledge Gaps, Study Notes |
Tagsno overlap | FailureResilienceRisk | LearningUnderstandingCommunication | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | LearningKnowledgeUnderstanding |