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 |  Operations Fault Tree Analysis |  Innovation Brainstorming |  Innovation Reverse Brainstorming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | For a critical top event with several possible triggers, the method logically models failure paths. It makes visible which combinations of conditions can lead to damage. | When a team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development. | For persistent errors or blockages, the method shifts the view to the opposite of the desired effect. It exposes the mechanics of failure and makes hidden causes easier to grasp. This makes improvement more concrete and the problem clearer. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 2-6 h | 30-60 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 3-8 | 4-12 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist | Reverse Ideas, Risk Themes, Solution Ideas |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | RiskRoot causeSafety | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityRisk |