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 Leverage Points |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Leverage Points show exactly where interventions in a system produce a disproportionate effect. It draws relationships, patterns, and feedback loops. The result is captured as a leverage map and action strategy. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | Half day | 1-2 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-10 | 3-12 | 2-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action Areas | Leverage Map, Action Strategy | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | AssessmentPortfolioCapability | Systems thinkingChangeStrategy | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | ChangeDecisionStrategy |