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 Scoring |  Product Discovery Jobs to Be Done |  Engineering Fault Isolation |  Product Discovery Kano Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 switching motives and progress are unclear, it reconstructs the situation from real customer circumstances. It shows why a switch happens and what kind of progress is being sought. | In technical failures, the visible symptom often gets mixed up with the actual cause. Fault Isolation narrows the fault space and progressively reduces which part of the system is truly affected. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 1-3 Wochen | 30-180 min | 1-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 5-12 Interviews | 1-6 | 10-50 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Job Stories, Outcome Statements, Opportunity List | Fault Isolation Map, Test Log, Excluded Hypotheses, Narrowed Fault Area | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | CustomerOutcomesNeeds | TroubleshootingDiagnosisEngineering | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer |