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.
Product Strategy Decision method
DIBB
Connects data, insight, belief, and bet into a traceable product strategy.
DIBB starts with reliable data, interprets it as insight, states a testable strategic belief, and derives a bounded bet. Every link remains justified.
Which bet follows from which belief, and which insight is supported by what data?
- Participants
- 2-8
- Time
- 1-2 h
DIBB uses data → insight → belief → bet as an explicit reasoning chain. Assessments remain justified and context-bound.

Data evidence
Data evidence
Document data quality, segment, horizon, and source.
Insight
Insight
Interpret pattern and test alternative explanations.
Belief
Belief
State the strategic causal belief explicitly.
Strategic bet
Strategic bet
Decide a bounded investment with target, guardrail, and review date.
Update after new evidence or a material context change and retain the previous version.
A good fit when
For strategy and prioritisation discussions with existing data and decision authority.
Ideal for
- Strategic decisions
- Product bets
- Cross-functional alignment
- Documenting strategy logic
Not good for
- Operational day-to-day decisions
- Pure backlog prioritization
- Topics without a data basis
Outputs

DIBB strategy chain
DIBB strategy chain with traceable sources, assumptions, and domain decisions.

Decision and review trail
Owners, dates, and next review for DIBB strategy chain.
DIBB strategy chain
Fictional worked example
data → insight → belief → bet as an explicit reasoning chain as a precise working structure with a fictional example.
Data
Data information to record
31 % Abbruch; 62 % nach Konflikt; 18 Interviews.
Insight
Insight information to record
Expliziter Konfliktabschluss fehlt.
Belief
Belief information to record
Geführter Abschluss erhöht Completion.
Bet
Bet information to record
4 Wochen; +8 pp; Medianzeit Guardrail.
The example demonstrates the domain logic of DIBB; worksheets remain blank.
First step
Start with the core question: Which bet follows from which belief, and which insight is supported by what data?
Good to do first
Deep dive
The team gathers relevant data, formulates the central insights, makes beliefs derived from those insights explicit, chooses a concrete bet, versions success criteria and assumptions, and later reviews the bet against new learning.
DIBB was developed at Spotify for structured decision-making in product and strategy. A decision is built across four layers: Data are facts, metrics, or observations. Insight is the key interpretation drawn from the data. Belief is the conviction derived from the insight, including assumptions and context. Bet is the concrete decision or strategic wager. The structure keeps clear what a strategy is based on and which layer must be revisited when evidence changes.
Keep beliefs and bets clearly separated from data. Version DIBB documents so learning loops remain visible, and revisit beliefs when new data challenges them.
The method guide walks execution through 4 phases, timing, 4 pitfalls, and clear stop criteria.
Open method guideYour perspective
Does this method help with your work?
Your feedback helps shape the next improvements to methodatlas.
Sources and topics
DIBB: WorksheetPlan DIBB around its domain steps and the concrete decision question.markdown
dibb-working-template.md
Plan DIBB around its domain steps and the concrete decision question.
DIBB: Worksheet
Question
To be confirmed
Desired outcome
To be confirmed
Scope
Establish and review the practice Time: 60–90 minutes; recurring review
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
Preparation for this scope
Method setup
- Materials: Quality-checked data, market and user context, strategic options, shared workspace, source links, and decision log.
- Roles: Product/Strategy · Data · Research · executive decision owner
- Advance information: Collect Quality-checked data, market and user context, strategic options in advance and mark open assumptions.
- Overall time needed: 60–90 minutes; recurring review
- Setup: Prepare data → insight → belief → bet as an explicit reasoning chain visibly and calibrate assessment terms before starting.
Prepare for the work steps
Data evidence: Data evidence
- Quality-checked data
- market and user context
- strategic options
Insight: Insight
- data record
- market and user context
- strategic options
Belief: Belief
- insight
- market and user context
- strategic options
Strategic bet: Strategic bet
- belief
- market and user context
- strategic options
DIBB strategy chain
Data
Data information to record
...
Insight
Insight information to record
...
Belief
Belief information to record
...
Bet
Bet information to record
...
Enter only real input, sources, and decisions.
Data evidence: Data evidence
Expected artifact: data record
data record · source · uncertainty · next decision
Entry:
...
- Are data observed rather than interpreted?
Insight: Insight
Expected artifact: insight
insight · source · uncertainty · next decision
Entry:
...
- Does insight follow from several pieces of evidence?
Belief: Belief
Expected artifact: belief
belief · source · uncertainty · next decision
Entry:
...
- Is the belief falsifiable?
Strategic bet: Strategic bet
Expected artifact: bet
bet · source · uncertainty · next decision
Entry:
...
- Does the bet follow directly from the belief?
Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/dibb/run-sheet
Alternatives and neighbors
Fitting alternatives with decision guidance, followed by other related methods.

Instead of DIBB, choose Architecture Decision Record when you want to document an architecture decision with context, options, and consequences.

Formulates goals precisely enough that measure, relevance, and deadline together form a clear basis for steering.

Moves target group, value, goals, and priorities toward a concrete result through "name the main metric", "collect possible unintended side effects", and "use counter metrics alongside the main metric in reviews".

Vision, target group, needs, value, and business goals fit onto one board that exposes assumptions for validation.

Uses a structured proposal and review process to make non-trivial technical or product changes discussable and decidable.

Converts goals into actors, behavior changes, and delivery options, showing which steps have leverage.
Constraints and origin
Profile
- Method form
- Decision method
- Participants
- 2-8
- Time
- 1-2 h
- Maturity
- Established
- Origin
- Gibson Biddle


