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 |  Innovation Reverse Brainstorming |  Innovation SCAMPER |  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. | For persistent errors or blockages, the method shifts the view to the opposite of the desired effect. It exposes the mechanics of failure and makes hidden causes easier to grasp. This makes improvement more concrete and the problem clearer. | For an existing solution under pressure to change, the method deliberately opens space for systematic variants. It directs attention to rebuilding, combining, and repurposing rather than only new basic ideas. This produces concrete evolution paths for products, offerings, or workflows. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 30-60 min | 30-60 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 3-12 | 2-10 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Reverse Ideas, Risk Themes, Solution Ideas | SCAMPER Idea List, Concept Shortlist, Variation Notes | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist |
Tags1 shared | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityRisk | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityReframingInnovation | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence |