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 Stakeholder Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 60–90 min | 45–90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 2-8 | 3-10 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |