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 Problem Interview |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Innovation TRIZ |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When the picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution. | When an idea can first fail or grow through genuine hands-on support, it relies on manual work instead of automation. It shows whether user value holds up even under manual execution. | For technical contradictions or trade-offs, the method looks for solutions that resolve opposing requirements at the same time. It translates limits into an explicit picture of conflict that becomes workable. This produces not just compromises but more elegant principles. | When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-4 Wochen | 1-4 h | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 3-10 Kunden | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Contradiction Statement, Inventive Principles, Solution Concepts | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | InnovationProblem solvingContradictionsCreativity | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |