View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Failure Mode and Effects AnalysisAlignment MappingStakeholder MappingStakeholder Salience Model
| Criterion |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 1-2 h | 60–90 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 4-12 | 2-8 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |