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 |  Knowledge Modeling Concept Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |  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. | Concept Mapping arranges terms and relationships in a network that makes subject-matter connections tangible. It fits when a topic needs to be understood structurally rather than linearly. | 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. | 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 | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 1-2 h | 1-4 Wochen | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 1-8 | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |