View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Innovation Contradiction Analysis |  Agile Example Mapping |  Innovation TRIZ |  Agile Specification by Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 a story carries business rules and exceptions, it brings clarity before implementation. It makes examples, open questions, and boundaries visible enough that the logic becomes jointly sound. | 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 business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 30-60 min | 1-4 h | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 3-7 | 2-8 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Contradiction Statement, Abstraction Notes, Solution Principles, Concept Ideas | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Contradiction Statement, Inventive Principles, Solution Concepts | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | ContradictionsInnovationProblem solving | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | InnovationProblem solvingContradictionsCreativity | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |