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 Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|
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 a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. | When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 45-90 min | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 8-80 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
