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 Opportunity Interview |  Knowledge Modeling Concept Mapping |  UX Research Personas |  Knowledge Modeling Knowledge Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | Concept Mapping arranges terms and relationships in a network that makes subject-matter connections tangible. It fits when a topic needs to be understood structurally rather than linearly. | When target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | Knowledge Mapping makes knowledge, gaps, and transfer paths visible across a field. It fits when expertise should not just exist but also be findable and transferable. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-2 h | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 1-8 | Internes Team | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Knowledge Map, Critical Knowledge Areas, Transfer Plan |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | KnowledgeMappingRisk |