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 |  Innovation Design Sprint |  Innovation Design Thinking |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 4-5 Tage | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 5-8 | 4-10 | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | InnovationPrototypeResearch | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |