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 Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | 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 | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | Mehrere Wochen | 1-3 h | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 5-30 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |