View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Knowledge Modeling Concept Mapping |  UX Research Personas |  Product Discovery Problem Interview |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Concept Mapping arranges terms and relationships in a network that makes subject-matter connections tangible. It fits when a topic needs to be understood structurally rather than linearly. | When target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | When the picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution. | 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 | 1-2 h | 1-3 Tage | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | Internes Team | 5-12 Interviews | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |