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 Stakeholder Salience Model |  Facilitation Expectation 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 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 45-90 min | 60-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-10 | 3-6 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |