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 Open Space Technology |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 complex topic does not yet have a fitting agenda, Open Space Technology hands topic ownership back to the participants. The format suits questions that only move forward when real interest determines the order. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 0.5-2 Tage | 5-15 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 20-500+ | 3-20 | 8-80 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Session Marketplace, Proceedings, Action Topics | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationDialogueLarge group |