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 |  Team Design Team API |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |  Delivery Communication Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 expectations between teams stay fuzzy, it describes how a team can be reached, used, and held accountable. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as a Team API document. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. | When many people need to be informed in parallel and messages would otherwise arrive unevenly or too late, a Communication Plan orders communication reliably. Channels, audiences, and cadences interlock so important information doesn't get lost. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | Half day initial, dann laufend | 30-60 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | Ein Team plus Stakeholder | 2-8 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Team API Document | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | TeamAlignmentCommunicationService | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning |