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 |  UX Research Contextual Inquiry |  Facilitation Alignment 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 work processes are known only from accounts and the real context stays hidden, Contextual Inquiry makes behavior at the workplace visible. Observation and follow-up questions together show how people actually work, get interrupted, and improvise. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 1-3 Wochen | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 4-12 Beobachtungen | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | UX researchObservationContext | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
