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 |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |  Decision Making Cynefin Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 problems are unclear, chaotic, or only seemingly familiar, standard recipes fall short. A Cynefin Workshop sorts situations by the nature of their problem and connects them with matching action logic. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 1-3 h | 60-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 1-8 | 2-8 | 4-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes | Cynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SensemakingDecisionRationale | RationaleKnowledgeDecision | ComplexitySensemakingDecision |