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 Nominal Group Technique |  Product Discovery Opportunity Scoring |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 60-120 min | 60-120 min | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 5-12 | 3-6 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tags1 shared | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |