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 Polarity Mapping |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation 1-2-4-All |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Polarity Mapping makes tensions between two opposing poles tangible, such as standardization and adaptation or control and autonomy. The method guards against making apparent either-or decisions prematurely. | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | When many people in a group too rarely get to speak, 1-2-4-All distributes thinking time more fairly. The format builds participation step by step and makes quiet or still-unformed thoughts usable faster. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 10-20 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 3-12 | 3-10 | 4-100+ |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Idea List, Shared Insights, Emergent Themes |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | FacilitationInclusionIdeation |