View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research User Interviews |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  Facilitation Problem Framing Workshop |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | When a team works on symptoms but the real question stays fuzzy, a Problem Framing Workshop sharpens the view of the right problem. It separates observation, interpretation, and target picture from each other. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-2 Tage | 60-120 min | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 10-50 | 4-10 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Problem Statement, Scope Boundaries, Assumption List, Next Analysis Questions | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | FacilitationAlignmentDiscovery | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |