RunsheetDecision Making

Argument Mapping

ComplexityMedium

Time1-3 h

Participants1-8

FormatWorkshop + async

MaturityEstablished

Preparation

What needs to be ready before start

Materials

Whiteboard or Miro board with a three-column structure (claim, reasons, evidence); sticky notes in three colors (thesis, pro, contra); arrows/markers; timer; shared sources for evidence.

People / roles

One facilitator who separates claims sharply and asks for evidence; one to eight participants with subject-matter knowledge; one scribe who recreates the map digitally.

Pre-read

Central decision question; previous discussion notes or memos; available data sources and studies; definition of 'evidence' (what counts: source, data, experience).

Time needed

1-3 h

Setup

Mark the three columns on the board. Stick an example row for pro/con/evidence. State the rule: every claim is supported by at least one reason, and every reason needs either evidence or an assumptions sticker.

Core question

The one question this method answers

Which claim is supported by which reasons and evidence, where are the counterarguments, and which gaps must be closed before a decision is made?

Flow

Marker: Phase

Step	Duration	Action	Hint
1Phase 1: Question and main thesis	10-15 min	Formulate the central question as one sentence. Put the main thesis (for example, 'We should do X') at the top of the board. Put the antithesis explicitly opposite it.	If the main thesis has no antithesis, the decision is trivial and Argument Mapping is unnecessary.
2Phase 2: Collect pro and contra arguments	30-45 min	Go around the room and collect reasons for and against the main thesis. One sentence per argument, in the schema 'X, because Y'. Put them on sticky notes, visibly assigned.	Split arguments that contain several claims into separate statements. Otherwise you cannot tell which part is sound.
3Phase 3: Add evidence	20-30 min	Add evidence stickers to each argument: source, data point, study, or experience report. If no evidence is available, add an assumptions sticker with 'to be checked'.	An assumptions sticker is not a flaw; it is a signal that research is needed. If nobody needs assumptions stickers, they probably have not checked carefully enough.
4Phase 4: Mark weaknesses and gaps	15-20 min	Walk through the map together. Mark arguments without evidence, with weak evidence, or with strong counterarguments. Create a list of open research questions.	Weak spots are often not 'wrong' but 'not decided'. Writing them down clearly as learning topics saves later debates.
5Phase 5: Decision recommendation	10-15 min	Based on the map, formulate a recommendation or hand over the decision prep status. Record the rationale for each recommendation in the decision log.	If the map shows more assumptions stickers than evidence, the recommendation is 'research first'. Avoid pseudo-decisions.

Artifact

What comes out at the end

Form

Argument map as an image or digital map plus a Markdown document with the question, main thesis, structured pro/con list, evidence, open research questions, and decision rationale.

Versioning / ownership

One map per question with date. When new evidence or arguments appear, add an update section at the end; do not delete old arguments, mark them as 'rebutted' or 'outdated'.

Tool alternatives

Miro with an argument map template
Rationale or bCisive for formal maps
draw.io with a hierarchical structure
Markdown with indented lists in the decision repo

argument-mapping-working-template.md

Compact working template for Argument Mapping with context, input, output artifacts, and next step.

Argument Mapping Canvas

Context

What is this method used for?

Core question

Which question should be answered at the end?

Input

Which data, observations, or materials are available?

Working area

Area 1:
Area 2:
Area 3:
Relationships / patterns:

Output artifacts

Argument Map:
Evidence Gaps:
Decision Rationale:

Open questions

Next step

Owner, date, success signal.

Example output

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

argument-mapping-beispiel.md

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Argument Map - self-host or use a managed service? (18.05.2026)

Question: Should we operate the new vector store ourselves or use a managed service?

Thesis A: Self-host.

Pro: Deep integration with existing infra (evidence: architecture review 04/2026).
Pro: Cost control over hardware (assumption: workload remains stable, to be checked).
Contra: Operations overhead (evidence: 18 hours/month for a similar system in Q1).

Thesis B: Managed service.

Pro: Faster start (evidence: pilot possible in 3 days, demo on 10.05.).
Pro: SLA and support (evidence: 99.95% SLA with provider X).
Contra: Data residency unclear (assumptions sticker: legal review needed).

Symptom

A decision is made despite dominant assumptions stickers.

What to do

If more than a third of the arguments rely on assumptions instead of evidence, the recommendation must be 'research first'. The decision log documents the caveat.

Stop criteria

Done signals checkable in under a minute

The question cannot be formulated in one sentence, so the map has no anchor.

No antithesis exists, so Argument Mapping is unnecessary.

The discussion is primarily emotional or conflict-heavy, so the method will not work.

The workshop is scheduled for less than 60 min, so the five phases cannot be completed.

No sources or data are available, so most evidence remains assumptions.

Decision authority is not present in the room, so the map will fizzle out.

Finished the runsheet?

Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.

Go to profile More methods