View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |  Agile NoEstimates |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |  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. | When estimating slows a team down more than it helps, it shifts the focus to flow, small slices, and real lead time. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, and Slicing Rules. | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | laufend | 15-45 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 2-12 | 1-8 | 1-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | RationaleKnowledgeDecision | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | SensemakingDecisionRationale |