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 |  Product Strategy DIBB |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 1-2 h | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 2-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
