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 |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 30–60 min | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 4-8 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ChangeDecisionStrategy | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |