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 |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
