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 |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  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. | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 30–60 min | 1-3 h | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 4-8 | 5-30 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Barrier Inventory, Failure Analysis per Barrier, Action Backlog |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | Root causeSafetyIncident |