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 User Interviews |  Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | In critical processes, it is not enough to plan only for the normal case. Failure Scenario Analysis looks at the path into failure and shows which failures, chains, and control gaps cause the most damage. | 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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 h | 1-2 h | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-8 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | FailureResilienceRisk | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |