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 TRIZ |  Engineering Fault Isolation |  Engineering Hypothesis-Driven Troubleshooting |  Innovation SCAMPER |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For technical contradictions or trade-offs, the method looks for solutions that resolve opposing requirements at the same time. It translates limits into an explicit picture of conflict that becomes workable. This produces not just compromises but more elegant principles. | In technical failures, the visible symptom often gets mixed up with the actual cause. Fault Isolation narrows the fault space and progressively reduces which part of the system is truly affected. | When systems fail unexpectedly, spontaneous attempts often produce more noise than insight. Hypothesis-driven Troubleshooting translates symptoms into testable assumptions and makes troubleshooting learnable. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 h | 30-180 min | 30-240 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 1-6 | 1-6 | 2-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Contradiction Statement, Inventive Principles, Solution Concepts | Fault Isolation Map, Test Log, Excluded Hypotheses, Narrowed Fault Area | Hypothesis Log, Test Plan, Evidence Notes, Diagnosis Summary | SCAMPER Idea List, Concept Shortlist, Variation Notes |
Tagsno overlap | InnovationProblem solvingContradictionsCreativity | TroubleshootingDiagnosisEngineering | TroubleshootingProblem solvingDiagnosis | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityReframingInnovation |