methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
How Might We
Innovation
How Might We
Paper illustration for 1-2-4-All.
Facilitation
1-2-4-All
Paper illustration of Counter Metrics with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
Counter Metrics
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Purposedifferent
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 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.When a headline metric could mask side effects, it adds guardrail signals against unwanted outcomes. It connects customer value, product logic, and decision priorities. The result is captured as a counter-metric list and guardrail definitions.When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable.
Complexitydifferent
LowLowLowMedium
Timedifferent
30–45 min10-20 min30-60 min1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
1-104-100+2-64-12
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea PromptsIdea List, Shared Insights, Emergent ThemesCounter Metric List, Guardrail DefinitionsAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions
FacilitationInclusionIdeation
MetricsMeasurementStrategyExperiments
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods