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 |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Product Strategy Lean Canvas |  Product Discovery Assumption 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. | ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification. | When an early product bet still has too many open points, it brings target group, problem, and assumptions into a single view. It condenses the idea so core risks become nameable. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 45-90 min | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Lean Canvas, Core Assumptions, Experiment Backlog | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | StartupLeanAssumptionsBusiness model | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |