methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of a branching category tree with a highlighted search path and possible dead ends.
UX Research
Tree Testing
Paper illustration of DIBB with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
DIBB
Anonymous individual judgments pass through feedback loops to form a distribution.
Decision Making
Delphi Method
Paper illustration of the Force Field Analysis working structure.
Decision Making
Force Field Analysis
Purposedifferent
When a navigation exists but search paths still fail, tree testing checks findability without visual distraction. The method shows whether labels, levels, and paths really lead to the intended destination.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.When knowledge is distributed and direct dominance should be avoided, groups quickly fall under the sway of their opinion leaders. The Delphi Method gathers assessments iteratively and gradually brings expert judgments closer together.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
MediumLowHighLow
Timedifferent
1-2 Tage1-2 h1-4 Wochen45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
Based on research question2-86-30 Experten3-12
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshop + asyncAsyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IADIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning reportExpert Forecast, Consensus Range, Assumption NotesForce Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes
Tagsno overlap
Information architectureNavigationFindability
StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis
ForecastingExpertsDecisionStrategy
ChangeDecisionStrategy
Add more methods