View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis |  Innovation Design Thinking |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | In critical processes, it is not enough to plan only for the normal case. Failure Scenario Analysis looks at the path into failure and shows which failures, chains, and control gaps cause the most damage. | 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. | 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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 1-2 h | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 4-10 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | FailureResilienceRisk | InnovationPrototypeResearch | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |