View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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 | 30–60 min | 1-2 h | 60–90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 2-8 | 2-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | ChangeDecisionStrategy |