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 |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Product Strategy DIBB |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30–60 min | 1-2 h | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 4-8 | 2-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeDecisionStrategy | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |