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 |  UX Research Personas |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  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 target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | 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 | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | Internes Team | 4-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence |