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 |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | 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 | High | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 30–60 min | 1-2 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 6-30 Experten | 4-8 | 2-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Expert Forecast, Consensus Range, Assumption Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ForecastingExpertsDecisionStrategy | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | ChangeDecisionStrategy |