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 |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-10 | 2-8 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action Areas | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | AssessmentPortfolioCapability | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | ChangeDecisionStrategy | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |