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 |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  UX Research Personas |  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 opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | When target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | 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 | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 5-12 Interviews | Internes Team | 1-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | RationaleKnowledgeDecision | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SensemakingDecisionRationale |