methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration for Problem Interview
Product Discovery
Problem Interview
Paper illustration for Concierge MVP
Product Discovery
Concierge MVP
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Purposedifferent
When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection.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.When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
5-15 min30-60 min je Interview1-4 Wochen60-120 min
Participantsdifferent
3-205-12 Interviews3-10 Kunden5-12
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistProblem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer SegmentsConcierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP RisksRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
DiscoveryInterviewsValidation
MVPValidationServiceDiscovery
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Add more methods