View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Delegation Poker |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  UX Research User Interviews |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When decisions get stuck between leadership and team, Delegation Poker clarifies the desired scope of autonomy. It shows how much decision-making latitude a role should actually get in practice. | When opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30-60 min je Interview | 30–60 min per interview | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 5-12 Interviews | 1 participant per interview | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | AutonomyRolesTeam | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation |