View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion | ![]() Systems Thinking Polarity Mapping | ![]() Systems Thinking Evaporating Cloud | ![]() Decision Making Assumption Surfacing | ![]() Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Polarity Mapping makes tensions between two opposing poles tangible, such as standardization and adaptation or control and autonomy. The method guards against making apparent either-or decisions prematurely. | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. | 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. | 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 | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 60-120 min | 45-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 2-8 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |



