View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations Standard Work Analysis |  UX Research User Interviews |  Product Discovery Problem Interview |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When the same task is done differently depending on the person, the method exposes the reliable core. It creates comparability without unnecessarily choking off needed latitude. | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30–60 min per interview | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 | 1 participant per interview | 5-12 Interviews | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Standard Work Sheet, Deviation List, Improved Standard, Training Needs | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | LeanProcessQuality | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |