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 |  Facilitation Open Space Technology |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a complex topic does not yet have a fitting agenda, Open Space Technology hands topic ownership back to the participants. The format suits questions that only move forward when real interest determines the order. | When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. | When opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 0.5-2 Tage | 45-90 min | 30-60 min je Interview |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 20-500+ | 8-80 | 5-12 Interviews |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Session Marketplace, Proceedings, Action Topics | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer |