View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Product Discovery Opportunity Scoring |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | When opportunities need ranking by their effect, it makes importance and satisfaction directly comparable. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as an opportunity-score table and top outcomes. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 1-2 h | 60-120 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 4-12 | 3-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |