Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:Fault Isolation Failure Scenario Analysis ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)Assumption Mapping

Criterion	Engineering Fault Isolation	Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Product Discovery Assumption Mapping
Purposedifferent	In technical failures, the visible symptom often gets mixed up with the actual cause. Fault Isolation narrows the fault space and progressively reduces which part of the system is truly affected.	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.	ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification.	When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first.
Complexitysame	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium
Timedifferent	30-180 min	1-3 h	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	45-60 min
Participantsdifferent	1-6	3-8	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	2-8
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop	Workshop + async	Workshop + async
Outputdifferent	Fault Isolation Map, Test Log, Excluded Hypotheses, Narrowed Fault Area	Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking
Tagsno overlap	TroubleshootingDiagnosisEngineering	FailureResilienceRisk	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation

Add more methods