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 Hypothesis-Driven Troubleshooting |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When systems fail unexpectedly, spontaneous attempts often produce more noise than insight. Hypothesis-driven Troubleshooting translates symptoms into testable assumptions and makes troubleshooting learnable. | 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. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-240 min | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 2-8 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Hypothesis Log, Test Plan, Evidence Notes, Diagnosis Summary | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | TroubleshootingProblem solvingDiagnosis | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |