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 |  Systems Thinking Futures Wheel |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | The Futures Wheel helps explore the consequences of a decision, a trend, or a strategic move in a structured way. It makes visible which first, second, and third-order effects could arise from an event. | 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. | When stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 60-120 min | 60–90 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 3-10 | 2-8 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Futures Wheel, Consequence Chains, Strategic Signals | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | ForesightSystems thinkingSignals | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |