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 |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Facilitation 1-2-4-All |  Facilitation Stakeholder 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. | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | When many people in a group too rarely get to speak, 1-2-4-All distributes thinking time more fairly. The format builds participation step by step and makes quiet or still-unformed thoughts usable faster. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 45-90 min | 10-20 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 3-12 | 4-100+ | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Idea List, Shared Insights, Emergent Themes | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | FacilitationInclusionIdeation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |