methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration for Problem Interview
Product Discovery
Problem Interview
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration for Concierge MVP
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 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.When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting.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
MediumLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
30-60 min je Interview5-15 min60-120 min1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
5-12 Interviews3-205-123-10 Kunden
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer SegmentsRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityConcierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks
Tagsno overlap
DiscoveryInterviewsValidation
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
MVPValidationServiceDiscovery
Add more methods