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 |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Decision Making Delphi Method |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. | 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 | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | 3-12 | 6-30 Experten | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Expert Forecast, Consensus Range, Assumption Notes | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationFindability | ChangeDecisionStrategy | ForecastingExpertsDecisionStrategy | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |