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 Design Thinking |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Product Discovery Problem Interview |  Innovation Design Sprint |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | 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. | 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 the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 1-4 Wochen | 30-60 min je Interview | 4-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 3-10 Kunden | 5-12 Interviews | 5-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | InnovationPrototypeResearch | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation |