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 ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Operations 5 Whys |  Operations Barrier Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. | For a risk that can only be managed through multiple layers of protection, the method examines the effectiveness of each barrier. It shows where safeguards are missing, too weak, or fail under real conditions. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 15-30 min | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 2-6 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Root cause notes, Countermeasures | Barrier Inventory, Failure Analysis per Barrier, Action Backlog |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving | Root causeSafetyIncident |