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 Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  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 it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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 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 | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-10 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |