View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  UX Research Customer Journey Mapping |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. | When a user journey falls apart across many touchpoints, customer journey mapping makes the experience visible as a coherent arc. Phases, emotions, and breaks become legible enough to prioritize critical moments deliberately. | When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. | When an idea can first fail or grow through genuine hands-on support, it relies on manual work instead of automation. It shows whether user value holds up even under manual execution. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 2-4 h | 1-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 2-5 | 4-10 | Nutzertraffic | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | JourneyServiceService design | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |