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 Leverage Points |  Growth A/B Testing |  Systems Thinking CATWOE Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Leverage Points show exactly where interventions in a system produce a disproportionate effect. It draws relationships, patterns, and feedback loops. The result is captured as a leverage map and action strategy. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | CATWOE structures a problem from six viewpoints and prevents too narrow a view of the situation. Different experiences of the system become comparably discussable this way. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | Half day | 1-4 Wochen | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 3-12 | 1-6 | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Leverage Map, Action Strategy | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | CATWOE Canvas, Root Definition, Stakeholder Perspectives, Constraints |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | Systems thinkingChangeStrategy | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | Systems thinkingFramingStakeholders |