Method guideKnowledge Modeling

IBIS

A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.

ComplexityMedium

Time1-3 h

Participants2-8

FormatWorkshop + async

MaturityCanonical

Plan

Prerequisite

What needs to be finished first

Complete firstDecidable Issue

The question permits several concrete Positions and falls within the group mandate.

Resolve factual lookups before mapping Positions.

Complete firstAccess to reasons

Relevant evidence and opposing perspectives can be introduced.

Without testable reasons, the map remains a list of opinions.

Preparation

What needs to be ready before start

Materials

Shared map, decision question, known options, evidence, criteria and source links.

People / roles

Issue owner, participants with distinct perspectives and a mapper who maintains consistent links.

Pre-read

Decision boundary, existing options, known facts and prior partial decisions.

Time needed

60–120 minutes for an initial map; continue when new arguments emerge

Setup

Define the Issue, Position, Pro and Con notation; give every element a stable label and source.

Core question

The one question this method answers

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

Flow

Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall

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.

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

1
Issue
Frame the Issue
Goal
Bounded Issue
Inputs for this step
- Trigger and decision context
- Mandate and constraints
Actions
- Phrase the Issue as a question and define key terms.
- Check whether it is a decision, a sub-issue or an information gap.
Output
Issue node
Question, scope, owner and status
Quality check
Can at least two distinct answers be stated? Is the question within the mandate?
Pitfall
A wish or solution is recorded as the Issue. Reframe it as an open decision question.
Timing: 10–20 minutes
2
Positions
Lay out Positions
Goal
Visible option space
Inputs for this step
- Issue node
- Proposals and counterproposals
Actions
- Write Positions as short assertions.
- Separate variants and link every Position directly to the Issue.
Output
Position nodes
One assertion per Position
Quality check
Does every Position answer the Issue? Are materially different alternatives separate?
Pitfall
Reasons and answers are mixed in one node. Keep the answer as a Position and create separate Arguments.
Timing: 15–25 minutes
3
Arguments
Connect Arguments
Goal
Reasoned argument network
Inputs for this step
- Positions
- Evidence, criteria and experience
Actions
- Record one claim per Argument with a source or assumption marker.
- Link the Argument as supports or objects-to one Position.
Output
Pro and Con Arguments
Claim, target, source and direction
Quality check
Is the direction of every link explicit? Can readers distinguish facts, judgements and assumptions?
Pitfall
One Argument judges several Positions at once. Split it or create a separate link for each Position.
Timing: 25–45 minutes
4
Sub-Issues
Open follow-up Issues
Goal
Visible knowledge gaps
Inputs for this step
- Argument network
- Conflicts and missing evidence
Actions
- Turn each decision-relevant uncertainty into a new Issue.
- Link it to the triggering element and assign an owner.
Output
Linked sub-Issues
Question, trigger, owner and due date
Quality check
Could the answer change a Position? Is the origin of the sub-Issue visible?
Pitfall
The map grows with unrelated research questions. Keep only decision-relevant Issues and park the rest elsewhere.
Timing: 10–20 minutes
5
Status
Mark decision status
Goal
Traceable decision state
Inputs for this step
- Complete IBIS map
- Mandate and decision criteria
Actions
- The owner sets the Issue status and selected Position.
- Record rationale, minority Arguments, conditions and review triggers.
Output
Statused IBIS map
Decision, rationale, conditions and review
Quality check
Do rejected Positions and Arguments remain readable? Is it clear who decided and when to revisit?
Pitfall
The loudest voice is treated as an implicit decision. Ask the mandated decision maker to confirm and record the decision.
Timing: 10–20 minutes

Artifact

What comes out at the end

Sketch: what the artifact looks like

IBIS · Issue-Based Information SystemEine offene Frage mit Positionen, Pro- und Contra-Argumenten so verbinden, dass Entscheidungslogik nachvollziehbar bleibt

Form

Versioned IBIS map containing Issues, Positions, Pro and Con arguments, status and open follow-up questions.

Versioning / ownership

Date every change; preserve earlier positions when an Issue is decided and record rationale.

Tool alternatives

IBIS or diagramming tool
Whiteboard with typed cards
Text document with stable element IDs

Example output

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional example for orientation. Counts and timings describe this case and are not universal requirements.

ibis-beispiel.md

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional example

Issue: Should the training provider confirm course bookings immediately?

Position A: Confirm immediately. Pro: Participants gain certainty; 78% of last-quarter bookings met the rules. Con: Corporate seat limits may be exceeded.

Position B: Review manually first. Pro: Special terms remain controlled. Con: Current review takes a median 26 hours and causes abandonment.

Follow-up Issue: Can seat limits be checked automatically before confirmation?

Status: Position A is selected for a pilot if the seat-limit check runs first. Owner: Mira; review after 100 bookings.

Pitfalls

Recognize symptoms and steer against them

Quick overview, the full text is in the matching phase in the flow

Frame the IssueA wish or solution is recorded as the Issue.View in phase
Lay out PositionsReasons and answers are mixed in one node.View in phase
Connect ArgumentsOne Argument judges several Positions at once.View in phase
Open follow-up IssuesThe map grows with unrelated research questions.View in phase
Mark decision statusThe loudest voice is treated as an implicit decision.View in phase

Stop criteria

When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach

The Issue lies outside the mandate or has no distinguishable Positions.

Decision-critical evidence is missing and cannot be obtained during the session.

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.

Finished the method guide?

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

Go to profile More methods