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 HEART Framework |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |  Product Strategy Counter Metrics |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Helps clarify observations, needs, and patterns in concrete terms. It groups observations into patterns, questions, and decisions. The result is captured as a HEART-GSM table and dashboard. | 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. | When a headline metric could mask side effects, it adds guardrail signals against unwanted outcomes. It connects customer value, product logic, and decision priorities. The result is captured as a counter-metric list and guardrail definitions. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 120 min initial, dann laufend | 1-3 h | 30-60 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 2-8 | 2-6 | 1-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | HEART-GSM Table, Dashboard | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes | Counter Metric List, Guardrail Definitions | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | MetricsUX researchMeasurementSatisfaction | RationaleKnowledgeDecision | MetricsMeasurementStrategyExperiments | SensemakingDecisionRationale |