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 |  Innovation Brainstorming |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|
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 a team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 30-60 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 4-12 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
