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 |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  UX Research User Interviews |  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. | 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. | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | 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 | 30–60 min per interview | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 2-8 | 1 participant per interview | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |