View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations Fault Tree Analysis |  Innovation Design Thinking |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a critical top event with several possible triggers, the method logically models failure paths. It makes visible which combinations of conditions can lead to 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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 45-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 4-10 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | InnovationPrototypeResearch | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |