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 Expectation Mapping |  Delivery RAID Log |  Facilitation Alignment 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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 45-90 min | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-12 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |