View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Outcome-Driven Innovation clarifies customer problems, solution opportunities, and evidence. It separates jobs, desired outcomes, importance, satisfaction, and opportunity, and captures results as desired outcome statements, an opportunity landscape, and segments by underserved needs. | 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. | A Future Reality Tree shows how desired actions are meant to lead to a better system state. The method checks whether a path of change holds together logically before time flows into implementation. | 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 | High | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | Mehrere Wochen | 45-90 min | 2-4 h | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 2-8 | 3-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |