Knowledge Modeling Mapping tool

IBIS

Maps contested questions so positions, arguments, and decision status remain traceable.

IBIS represents deliberation as a network of Issues, Positions and Arguments. Each position answers a specific issue; pro and con arguments attach to one position. The map preserves what was selected, rejected or left open.

Core question

Which position answers the Issue most convincingly given the current arguments?

Plan Method guide

Start comparison

Give feedbackIs this method useful to you?

Participants: 2-8 participants
Time: 60–120 minutes for an initial map; continue when new arguments emerge

Paper illustration of an IBIS map with issues, positions and arguments

Issue
Frame the Issue
State an open, contested question that Positions can answer.
Positions
Lay out Positions
Capture each serious answer to the Issue as its own Position.
Arguments
Connect Arguments
Attach testable reasons as Pro or Con to the Position they address.
Sub-Issues
Open follow-up Issues
Model unresolved terms, conflicts and information needs as new Issues.
Status
Mark decision status
Mark selected, rejected and open Positions with the governing rationale.

Add new questions as Issues, attach new evidence to existing Arguments and update the status of affected Positions.

A good fit when

For complex design, architecture or policy questions with several plausible positions and a need for durable rationale.

Ideal for

Design Rationale
Architecture Decisions
Policy Discussions

Not good for

Simple task planning
Ideation without an argument structure

Outputs

IBIS map
Linked Issues, Positions and Pro and Con Arguments.
Decision state
Status, rationale, open sub-issues and agreed review triggers.

IBIS · Issue Map

Fictional example

Typed entries keep the question, alternatives, reasons and decision state connected.

Issue

What open question must be decided? Add scope, owner and status.

Should the training provider confirm course bookings immediately?

Positions

What concrete answers are available? Write one assertion per Position.

A: confirm immediately; B: review manually first.

Arguments

What reasons support or object to which Position? Add source or assumption status.

Pro A: 78% compliant. Con A: seat limits may be exceeded.

Follow-up Issues

Which decision-relevant sub-questions arise from Positions or Arguments?

Can seat limits be checked automatically before confirmation?

Status

Which Position was selected by whom, under what conditions and with what review trigger?

Pilot A after an automated seat check; review after 100 bookings.

The example is a small excerpt. In a real map, Arguments may generate additional Issues.

Conklin & Begeman: gIBIS

First step

State one genuinely contested question as an Issue and define the decision boundary.

Open the method guide

Where to go next?

Paper illustration of a Concept Map with concepts and labelled links

Knowledge Modeling

Concept Mapping

Turns the position's clarified concepts and relationships into a concept model.

Knowledge Modeling

Teach-back

Checks whether people involved can correctly understand and restate the clarified position.

Deep dive

Purpose

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.

How it works

The team first formulates the central question as an issue. Then possible answers are collected as ideas and linked with pro and con arguments. This keeps the decision path transparent even when the situation is contradictory.

In detail

IBIS works well because it breaks discussions down into issues, positions, and arguments, exposing decision logic as a result. The benefit arises when controversial points are cleanly separated in language and reasoning is visibly attached to exactly one statement. Whoever uses the method well pays attention to sharply distinct questions, traceable counterarguments, and documented conclusions, so debates don't start over from scratch later.

Facilitation

Prepare a guiding question that works as a genuine decision problem, and introduce the team to the three building blocks early, so no mixed forms emerge. It becomes especially important when opinions show up disguised as facts; then they should immediately be recategorized as a position or an argument. In the end, a visible decision or a marked remaining uncertainty tied to the next appointment is needed.

The method guide walks execution through 5 phases, timing, 5 pitfalls, and clear stop criteria.

Open method guide

Your perspective