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 |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Delivery RAID Log |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | When stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 60–90 min | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 2-8 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |