Product decisions

For Product Managers

Choose the roadmap bet, package, or price with comparable customer evidence—not loudest-voice votes or a spreadsheet full of equal ratings.

Roadmap prioritization

Concept validation

Pricing and packaging

Create a product survey Hire a research expert

Private beta: profile discovery and consultation requests do not guarantee expert acceptance or a meeting.

Illustrative product view—not a customer result

Beta

A relevant product path

Interpret pricing and package trade-offs

For product managers, start with feature prioritization: Use MaxDiff to rank candidate features by relative customer value, then review segment differences and confidence.

Open the matched decision guide

Problems this playbook solves

Each path starts with a concrete decision, names the method, and links to the deeper problem guide.

Feature prioritization

Problem

Roadmaps get steered by loud voices and incomparable requests.

How to solve it

Use MaxDiff to rank candidate features by relative customer value, then review segment differences and confidence.

MaxDiff

Segment analysis

Open the decision guide

Concept validation

Problem

Teams commit engineering capacity before learning which concept solves a meaningful need.

How to solve it

Compare concepts with purchase intent, preference evidence, and reviewed open-ended follow-up.

Concept test

Open-ended follow-up

Open the decision guide

Pricing research

Problem

New tiers need pricing evidence before packaging decisions become expensive to unwind.

How to solve it

Estimate acceptable ranges and demand trade-offs with Van Westendorp, Gabor-Granger, or conjoint.

Van Westendorp

Conjoint

Open the decision guide

Survey examples

Three surveys for the decisions ahead

Start with the decision, inspect the evidence available today, and keep the limits attached to every handoff.

MaxDiff roadmap prioritization

Rank plausible roadmap bets through explicit trade-offs before the planning meeting.

Public MaxDiff workflow and its decision framing. — Analysis · Captured
Synthetic example · not a customer result.

Public: Available

Boundary: Preference does not forecast adoption or delivery value.

Evidence gap: Local authenticated synthetic decision views are captured. Production deployment, customer outcomes, claim substantiation, and method-specific live certification remain unverified.

Preview roadmap study Read study evidence and limitations

How it works and evidence limits

Use this when

Too many plausible backlog items all appear important.

What you do

Run best-and-worst trade-off tasks across candidate features.

Best-and-worst choice tasks
Segment-ready priority ranking
Visible bases and caveats

Evidence returned

Relative priorities, segment differences, bases, and blockers.

Product: Live

Evidence: Captured Synthetic Product Evidence

Illustrative product view using synthetic data. It is not a customer result or outcome claim.

Capabilities: research-method-question-types, presentation-and-share-links

Package and price conjoint

Compare realistic bundles so tier decisions expose feature and price trade-offs.

Captured synthetic three-tier package study bundle. — Analysis · Captured
Synthetic example · not a customer result.

Public: Beta

Boundary: Preference simulation is not a sales forecast.

Evidence gap: Local authenticated synthetic decision views are captured. Production deployment, customer outcomes, claim substantiation, and method-specific live certification remain unverified.

Preview bundle study Read study evidence and limitations

How it works and evidence limits

Use this when

Tier design mixes intuition, feature politics, and price pressure.

What you do

Compare realistic feature, service, and price bundles.

Realistic bundle choices
Attribute-level trade-offs
Scenario-ready package evidence

Evidence returned

Attribute importance, utilities, and package scenarios.

Product: Beta

Evidence: Captured Synthetic Product Evidence

Illustrative product view using synthetic data. It is not a customer result or outcome claim.

Capabilities: research-method-question-types, presentation-and-share-links

Product concept comparison

Compare concepts and rationale before committing engineering capacity.

Desktop visual-message workflow using the seeded concept fixture. — Analysis · Captured
Synthetic example · not a customer result.

Public: Beta

Boundary: The study informs selection; it does not establish market demand.

Evidence gap: Local authenticated synthetic decision views are captured. Production deployment, customer outcomes, claim substantiation, and method-specific live certification remain unverified.

Preview concept test Read study evidence and limitations

How it works and evidence limits

Use this when

Teams commit to a concept before testing relevance and clarity.

What you do

Randomize concept exposure and collect preference plus rationale.

Randomized concept exposure
Preference and reason capture
Contradiction review by concept

Evidence returned

Concept comparison, contradictions, and open-text reasons.

Product: Beta

Evidence: Captured Synthetic Product Evidence

Illustrative product view using synthetic data. It is not a customer result or outcome claim.

Capabilities: survey-ab-testing, review-assisted-text-analysis

Role-specific workflow

Before roadmap review: turn candidate bets into comparable preference and concept questions.

After analysis: share prioritized options, caveats, and the next decision in a concise evidence memo.

Decision-ready handoffs

Roadmap notes

Decision memo

CSV export

Segment definitions

Chart snapshots

Important context: MaxDiff, conjoint, pricing methods, survey analytics, and reviewed exports are available today; autonomous interview workflows remain gated by their stated availability.