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 How Might We |  Product Discovery Problem Interview |  UX Research User Interviews |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | With a stuck problem carrying many implicit assumptions, the method translates observations into open, workable questions. It sharpens the problem frame without pre-thinking the solution, turning frustration or fuzziness into a search space with clear direction. | 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 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 demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 30-60 min je Interview | 30–60 min per interview | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 5-12 Interviews | 1 participant per interview | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |