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 Context Canvas |  Innovation How Might We |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation 1-2-4-All |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When an environment of users, systems, and constraints is hard to grasp, it puts the context compactly on the table. It creates a clear reading of influence, boundary, and dependency. | With a stuck problem carrying many implicit assumptions, the method translates observations into open, workable questions. It sharpens the problem frame without pre-thinking the solution, turning frustration or fuzziness into a search space with clear direction. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | When many people in a group too rarely get to speak, 1-2-4-All distributes thinking time more fairly. The format builds participation step by step and makes quiet or still-unformed thoughts usable faster. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30–45 min | 60–90 min | 10-20 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1-10 | 2-8 | 4-100+ |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Context canvas, Open questions, Shared context notes | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Idea List, Shared Insights, Emergent Themes |
Tagsno overlap | ContextFramingRequirementsCanvas | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | FacilitationInclusionIdeation |