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 How Might We |  Growth A/B Testing |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 1-4 Wochen | 45-90 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 1-6 | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |