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 |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Architecture Risk Storming |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 45-60 min | 60-90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 2-8 | 4-12 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |