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 Kaizen Event |  Product Discovery Opportunity Solution Tree |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 tightly scoped process segment with noticeable waste, the method bundles shared energy for change. It suits situations that call for fast learning loops and visible adjustments. | When discovery keeps swinging between goals, ideas, and learning loops, it creates clear steering logic. It connects the desired outcome, opportunities, and experiments into a legible structure. | When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 0.5-5 Tage | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 4-10 | 2-6 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Kaizen Charter, Waste List, Improvement Experiments, Standard Work Update | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | LeanContinuous improvementOperations | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |