View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Architecture C4 Model |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | The C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-4 h | 1-2 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 1-5 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeDecisionStrategy | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |