View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Knowledge Modeling Concept Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | Concept Mapping arranges terms and relationships in a network that makes subject-matter connections tangible. It fits when a topic needs to be understood structurally rather than linearly. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-2 h | 60–90 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 1-8 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | RationaleKnowledgeDecision |