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 |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  Innovation Design Charrette |  Innovation 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. | When opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | In a tightly timed design process with many participants, the method pools several lines of thinking in a short time. It brings parallel design energy without letting the discussion tip into endless coordination. This quickly produces solid directions for architecture or space. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 30-60 min je Interview | Halber Tag bis mehrere Tage | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 5-12 Interviews | 10-50 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Sketches and Concepts, Consolidated Solution Sketch, Prioritized Direction | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | BrainstormingWorkshopCollaborationIdeation | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence |