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 Knowledge Mapping |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 | 120 min initial, dann laufend | 1-3 h | 1-3 h | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-12 | 1-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | HEART-GSM Table, Dashboard | Knowledge Map, Critical Knowledge Areas, Transfer Plan | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes |
Tagsno overlap | MetricsUX researchMeasurementSatisfaction | KnowledgeMappingRisk | SensemakingDecisionRationale | RationaleKnowledgeDecision |