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 Knowledge Mapping |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. | 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 Wochen | 1-3 h | 1-3 h | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 Beobachtungen | 3-12 | 1-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Knowledge Map, Critical Knowledge Areas, Transfer Plan | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes |
Tagsno overlap | UX researchObservationContext | KnowledgeMappingRisk | SensemakingDecisionRationale | RationaleKnowledgeDecision |