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 User Interviews |  Decision Making Delphi Method |  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 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. | When knowledge is distributed and direct dominance should be avoided, groups quickly fall under the sway of their opinion leaders. The Delphi Method gathers assessments iteratively and gradually brings expert judgments closer together. | 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 | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30–60 min per interview | 1-4 Wochen | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 1 participant per interview | 6-30 Experten | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Expert Forecast, Consensus Range, Assumption Notes | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ForecastingExpertsDecisionStrategy | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |