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 Radar |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When capabilities, maturity levels, or market positions need to be compared across several dimensions, overview is easily lost. Radar brings different characteristics into a shared picture and shows patterns faster than tables do. | 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 | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-10 | 2-8 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action Areas | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | AssessmentPortfolioCapability | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |