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 of two people facing each other, speech bubbles and an open interview notebook.
UX Research
User Interviews
Paper illustration for Delegation Poker.
Facilitation
Delegation Poker
Paper illustration for Problem Interview
Product Discovery
Problem Interview
Paper illustration for Fake Door Test
Product Discovery
Fake Door Test
Purposedifferent
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 decisions get stuck between leadership and team, Delegation Poker clarifies the desired scope of autonomy. It shows how much decision-making latitude a role should actually get in practice.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 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
LowLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
30–60 min per interview45-90 min30-60 min je Interview1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
1 participant per interview3-105-12 InterviewsNutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + asyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Interview Notes, Themes, Insight SummaryDelegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role AgreementsProblem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer SegmentsClick Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision
Tagsno overlap
QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery
AutonomyRolesTeam
DiscoveryInterviewsValidation
ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery
Add more methods