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 Delphi Method |  Architecture C4 Model |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | The C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. | 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 | High | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 1-4 h | 45-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 6-30 Experten | 1-5 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Expert Forecast, Consensus Range, Assumption Notes | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | ForecastingExpertsDecisionStrategy | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | ChangeDecisionStrategy | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |