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 Problem Interview |  Innovation TRIZ |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-4 h | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 5-12 Interviews | 2-8 | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Contradiction Statement, Inventive Principles, Solution Concepts | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | InnovationPrototypeResearch | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | InnovationProblem solvingContradictionsCreativity | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |