View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations Fault Tree Analysis |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a critical top event with several possible triggers, the method logically models failure paths. It makes visible which combinations of conditions can lead to damage. | 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. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 1-2 h | 45–90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 4-12 | 3-10 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |