View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Knowledge Modeling Feynman Technique |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus. | 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 Feynman Technique checks understanding by explaining a topic so that it stays easy for others to understand. It makes knowledge gaps visible before they become costly in everyday work. | 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 | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 20-60 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 3-12 | 1 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Plain-language Explanation, Knowledge Gaps, Study Notes | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | RationaleKnowledgeDecision | ChangeDecisionStrategy | LearningKnowledgeUnderstanding | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |