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 Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Product Discovery Opportunity Scoring |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Outcome-Driven Innovation clarifies customer problems, solution opportunities, and evidence. It separates jobs, desired outcomes, importance, satisfaction, and opportunity, and captures results as desired outcome statements, an opportunity landscape, and segments by underserved needs. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | Mehrere Wochen | 60-120 min | 5-15 min | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 3-6 | 3-20 | 5-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion |