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 |  Delivery Communication Plan |  Delivery Shape Up |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 need to be informed in parallel and messages would otherwise arrive unevenly or too late, a Communication Plan orders communication reliably. Channels, audiences, and cadences interlock so important information doesn't get lost. | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 45-90 min | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 2-6 | 2-4 pro Pitch | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |