methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of an IBIS map with issues, positions and arguments
Knowledge Modeling
IBIS
Decision Tree method illustration showing its working structure
Decision Making
Decision Tree
EventStorming on a long working surface: colored event cards form a business flow, friction points are marked, and a boundary separates different areas of responsibility.
Domain Modeling
EventStorming
Paper illustration for Argument Mapping
Decision Making
Argument Mapping
Purposedifferent
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.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.When a domain consists of many events, rules, and states, it creates a shared modeling space for the team. It bundles language, flows, and boundaries before domain knowledge fragments into siloed views.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.
Complexitysame
MediumMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
1-3 h30-90 min2-8 h1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
2-81-65-121-8
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Issue Map, Positions, Argument NotesDecision Tree, Option Map, Assumption ListEvent Timeline, Ubiquitous Language, Boundaries, Open QuestionsArgument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale
Tagsno overlap
RationaleKnowledgeDecision
DecisionTreeOptions
Domain-Driven DesignEventsDiscoveryWorkshop
SensemakingDecisionRationale
Add more methods