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 |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |  Facilitation Stakeholder 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. | When stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 45-90 min | 60-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-12 | 3-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |