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 Fault Isolation |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | In technical failures, the visible symptom often gets mixed up with the actual cause. Fault Isolation narrows the fault space and progressively reduces which part of the system is truly affected. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-180 min | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 2-8 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Isolation Map, Test Log, Excluded Hypotheses, Narrowed Fault Area | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | TroubleshootingDiagnosisEngineering | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | ChangeDecisionStrategy | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |