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 an IBIS map with issues, positions and arguments
Knowledge Modeling
IBIS
Paper illustration for Problem Interview
Product Discovery
Problem Interview
Paper illustration for Concierge MVP
Product Discovery
Concierge MVP
Paper illustration for Fake Door Test
Product Discovery
Fake Door Test
Purposedifferent
IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus.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 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.
Complexitysame
MediumMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
1-3 h30-60 min je Interview1-4 Wochen1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
2-85-12 Interviews3-10 KundenNutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Issue Map, Positions, Argument NotesProblem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer SegmentsConcierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP RisksClick Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision
Tagsno overlap
RationaleKnowledgeDecision
DiscoveryInterviewsValidation
MVPValidationServiceDiscovery
ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery
Add more methods