View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Innovation TRIZ |  Innovation Brainstorming |  Innovation SCAMPER |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | For technical contradictions or trade-offs, the method looks for solutions that resolve opposing requirements at the same time. It translates limits into an explicit picture of conflict that becomes workable. This produces not just compromises but more elegant principles. | When a team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development. | For an existing solution under pressure to change, the method deliberately opens space for systematic variants. It directs attention to rebuilding, combining, and repurposing rather than only new basic ideas. This produces concrete evolution paths for products, offerings, or workflows. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-4 h | 30-60 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 2-8 | 4-12 | 2-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Contradiction Statement, Inventive Principles, Solution Concepts | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist | SCAMPER Idea List, Concept Shortlist, Variation Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | InnovationProblem solvingContradictionsCreativity | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityReframingInnovation |