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 |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 45-90 min | 45-60 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-12 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ChangeDecisionStrategy | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |