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 Contextual Inquiry |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |  Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis |  Knowledge Modeling Knowledge Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When work processes are known only from accounts and the real context stays hidden, Contextual Inquiry makes behavior at the workplace visible. Observation and follow-up questions together show how people actually work, get interrupted, and improvise. | 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. | In critical processes, it is not enough to plan only for the normal case. Failure Scenario Analysis looks at the path into failure and shows which failures, chains, and control gaps cause the most damage. | Knowledge Mapping makes knowledge, gaps, and transfer paths visible across a field. It fits when expertise should not just exist but also be findable and transferable. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen | 1-3 h | 1-3 h | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 Beobachtungen | 2-8 | 3-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | Knowledge Map, Critical Knowledge Areas, Transfer Plan |
Tagsno overlap | UX researchObservationContext | RationaleKnowledgeDecision | FailureResilienceRisk | KnowledgeMappingRisk |