View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Innovation Design Thinking |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | 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. | A Future Reality Tree shows how desired actions are meant to lead to a better system state. The method checks whether a path of change holds together logically before time flows into implementation. | 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 | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 45-90 min | 2-4 h | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 2-8 | 3-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | InnovationPrototypeResearch | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |