View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Strategy DIBB |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 30–60 min | 45–90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 4-8 | 3-10 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ChangeDecisionStrategy |