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 Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 1-2 h | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 1-8 | 1-6 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |