View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Tree Testing |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 Tage | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | 2-8 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationFindability | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | ChangeDecisionStrategy | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |