methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
How Might We
Innovation
How Might We
Paper illustration of a decision table with criteria rows, weighted ratings, and a narrowly leading alternative.
Decision Making
Decision Matrix
Paper illustration of a calm four-quadrant Assumption Map with hypothesis cards and emphasis on important assumptions with little evidence.
Product Discovery
Assumption Mapping
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
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 several options collide with several criteria, comparison quickly becomes subjective. A Decision Matrix makes the trade-off visible and brings weighting, criteria, and options into a shared logic.When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first.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
LowMediumMediumHigh
Timedifferent
30–45 min45-90 min45-60 min1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
1-102-82-81-6
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncAsync
Outputdifferent
HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea PromptsDecision Matrix, Scoring Rationale, Selected OptionAssumption map, Test backlog, Risk rankingExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summary
Tagsno overlap
FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions
DecisionCriteriaScoringTradeoffs
AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
Add more methods