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 Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 30–60 min | 60–90 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 4-8 | 2-8 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |