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 |  Systems Thinking Evaporating Cloud |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  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. | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. | 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. | 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 | 2-10 | 2-8 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action Areas | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | AssessmentPortfolioCapability | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking | ChangeDecisionStrategy | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |