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 Strategy DIBB |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 45-90 min |
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 | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ChangeDecisionStrategy | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |