View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking CATWOE Analysis |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | CATWOE structures a problem from six viewpoints and prevents too narrow a view of the situation. Different experiences of the system become comparably discussable this way. | 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. | In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. | 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 | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 2-8 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | CATWOE Canvas, Root Definition, Stakeholder Perspectives, Constraints | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingFramingStakeholders | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ChangeDecisionStrategy | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |