View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile ROAM Board |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Operations Fault Tree Analysis |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When work needs to move between different states or columns, it makes that movement and its handoffs legible. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a ROAM Board and an Owner List. | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | 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 a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 20-40 min initial, dann laufend | 30–60 min | 2-6 h | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-15 | 4-8 | 3-8 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | ROAM Board, Owner List | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | RiskAgileTrackingAlignment | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | RiskRoot causeSafety | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |