View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Innovation Contradiction Analysis |  Growth A/B Testing |  Innovation TRIZ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | When a system should improve while another measure suffers as a result, the method makes the underlying conflict precisely formulable. It separates the desired effect from its side effect. This makes solutions possible that address the contradiction deliberately instead of half-heartedly. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | High |
Timedifferent | 45-60 min | 60-120 min | 1-4 Wochen | 1-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 2-8 | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Contradiction Statement, Abstraction Notes, Solution Principles, Concept Ideas | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Contradiction Statement, Inventive Principles, Solution Concepts |
Tagsno overlap | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ContradictionsInnovationProblem solving | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | InnovationProblem solvingContradictionsCreativity |