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 Personas |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Decision Making Constraint Analysis |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When an initiative stalls, the limit often lies not in the idea but in hard or soft boundary conditions. Constraint Analysis separates these limits and shows which of them can actually be shaped. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 30-90 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 1-8 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Constraint List, Hard/Soft Classification, Option Impact Notes, Decision Boundaries | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ConstraintsDecisionPlanningOptions | RationaleKnowledgeDecision |