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 PERT Estimation |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. | 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. | 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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 2-8 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | ChangeDecisionStrategy | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |