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 User Interviews |  Knowledge Modeling Concept Mapping |  Decision Making Cynefin Workshop |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | Concept Mapping arranges terms and relationships in a network that makes subject-matter connections tangible. It fits when a topic needs to be understood structurally rather than linearly. | 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. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-2 h | 60-180 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 1-8 | 4-20 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Cynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | ComplexitySensemakingDecision | RationaleKnowledgeDecision |