View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 45–90 min | 45-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-10 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |