View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Personas |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  Product Strategy KPI Tree |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 metrics across the organization drift apart, it arranges drivers and effects under one shared logic. It connects customer value, product logic, and decision priorities. The result is captured as a KPI tree and owner list. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-2 Tage | 90-180 min initial, dann laufend | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 10-50 | 3-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | KPI Tree, Owner List | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | MetricsStrategyAlignmentMeasurement | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |