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 |  UX Research Personas |  Decision Making Decision Tree |  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. | When target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | For decisions with follow-on paths and dependencies, a linear comparison is often not enough. A Decision Tree shows how options branch under conditions and which consequences hang on each branch. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-3 Tage | 30-90 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | Internes Team | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Decision Tree, Option Map, Assumption List | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | DecisionTreeOptions | RationaleKnowledgeDecision |