methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration for Contextual Inquiry.
UX Research
Contextual Inquiry
Paper illustration of an IBIS map with issues, positions and arguments
Knowledge Modeling
IBIS
Paper illustration of DIBB with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
DIBB
Paper illustration of the Force Field Analysis working structure.
Decision Making
Force Field Analysis
Purposedifferent
When work processes are known only from accounts and the real context stays hidden, Contextual Inquiry makes behavior at the workplace visible. Observation and follow-up questions together show how people actually work, get interrupted, and improvise.IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus.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.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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumLowLow
Timedifferent
1-3 Wochen1-3 h1-2 h45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
4-12 Beobachtungen2-82-83-12
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain PointsIssue Map, Positions, Argument NotesDIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning reportForce Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes
Tagsno overlap
UX researchObservationContext
RationaleKnowledgeDecision
StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis
ChangeDecisionStrategy
Add more methods