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 |  Engineering Fault Isolation |  Engineering Hypothesis-Driven Troubleshooting |  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. | In technical failures, the visible symptom often gets mixed up with the actual cause. Fault Isolation narrows the fault space and progressively reduces which part of the system is truly affected. | When systems fail unexpectedly, spontaneous attempts often produce more noise than insight. Hypothesis-driven Troubleshooting translates symptoms into testable assumptions and makes troubleshooting learnable. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 30-180 min | 30-240 min | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1-6 | 1-6 | 2-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Fault Isolation Map, Test Log, Excluded Hypotheses, Narrowed Fault Area | Hypothesis Log, Test Plan, Evidence Notes, Diagnosis Summary | Barrier Inventory, Failure Analysis per Barrier, Action Backlog |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | TroubleshootingDiagnosisEngineering | TroubleshootingProblem solvingDiagnosis | Root causeSafetyIncident |