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 |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  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 change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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 | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-12 | 2-8 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Barrier Inventory, Failure Analysis per Barrier, Action Backlog |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | ChangeDecisionStrategy | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | Root causeSafetyIncident |