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 Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. | 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 a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 45-90 min | 5-15 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 8-80 | 3-20 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |