# Workshop Methods

Facilitation techniques for team workshops — framing problems, generating ideas, prioritizing decisions, and building alignment. These are collaborative activities, not solo research methods. Most work best with 4-10 participants and a dedicated facilitator.

---

## Problem Framing

Methods for defining and reframing the problem before jumping to solutions.

### Statement Starters (How Might We)

> Reframe problems as opportunities using open-ended prompts.

**Best for:** Transitioning from research findings to ideation; reframing negative findings as design challenges
**Participants:** 3-8
**Time:** 15-30 minutes

**Process:**
1. Start with a set of research findings, pain points, or problem statements
2. Rewrite each as an open-ended prompt using a starter phrase:
   - "How might we ___?"
   - "In what ways might we ___?"
   - "How to ___?"
3. Pick the best starter for each problem — the one that opens the most solution space without embedding a specific solution
4. Vote on the strongest HMW statements to carry into ideation

**Tips:**
- Don't embed solutions: "HMW add a search bar?" is too narrow. "HMW help users find what they need quickly?" opens more possibilities
- Too broad = useless ("HMW improve the experience?"). Too narrow = one solution. Aim for the middle
- Generate 3-5 HMW variations per insight, then pick the best

**Example:**
- Finding: "Users abandon checkout when they see unexpected shipping costs"
- Too broad: "HMW improve checkout?"
- Too narrow: "HMW show shipping costs on the product page?"
- Right level: "HMW eliminate surprises during checkout?"

---

### Problem Tree Analysis

> Explore causes and effects of a problem by mapping them as roots and branches.

**Best for:** Understanding root causes before solving; revealing that the stated problem may not be the real one
**Participants:** 4-8
**Time:** 30-45 minutes

**Process:**
1. Write the focal problem statement in the center of a whiteboard
2. Ask the team to identify **causes** — write below the problem (roots)
3. For each cause, ask "Why does this happen?" to dig deeper (sub-roots)
4. Ask the team to identify **effects** — write above the problem (branches)
5. For each effect, ask "What does this lead to?" (sub-branches)
6. Discuss and decide which root cause or effect to focus on

**Tips:**
- Distinguish direct vs. indirect causes — direct causes are more actionable
- Some effects are frequent, some rare — note which ones matter most
- The original problem statement may turn out to be a symptom, not the root cause
- Use dot voting to decide which branch to tackle first

---

### Abstraction Laddering

> Broaden or narrow a problem statement by asking "Why?" (up) and "How?" (down).

**Best for:** When the problem feels too broad or too narrow; reframing to find the right level of abstraction
**Participants:** 3-6
**Time:** 20-30 minutes

**Process:**
1. Write the initial problem statement on the middle rung of a ladder diagram
2. Move **up** by asking "Why is this important?" — produces broader, more strategic frames
3. Move **down** by asking "How might we solve this?" — produces narrower, more tactical frames
4. Generate 2-3 options at each level
5. Discuss and choose the level that opens the most useful solution space

**Example:**
- Start: "Users can't find the settings page"
- Up (Why?): "Users can't customize their experience" → "Users feel the product doesn't fit their needs"
- Down (How?): "Add settings to the navigation" → "Add a gear icon in the header"
- Best level depends on project scope — early discovery goes up, late iteration goes down

**Tips:**
- Going up reveals strategic opportunities you might have missed
- Going down reveals that you may already have a solution in mind (check if it's the right one)
- Sometimes the original statement turns out to be the best level after all

---

### Rose, Thorn, Bud

> Categorize observations as positive (rose), negative (thorn), or having potential (bud).

**Best for:** Quick team debrief after research sessions, sprint retrospectives, design reviews
**Participants:** 3-10
**Time:** 15-25 minutes

**Process:**
1. Give each participant sticky notes in three colors:
   - **Pink/Red = Rose** — things that are positive, working well
   - **Blue = Thorn** — things that are negative, painful, broken
   - **Green = Bud** — things that have potential, ideas worth exploring
2. Set a timer (5-8 minutes) for silent individual writing — one item per note
3. Each person places their notes on a shared board
4. Group similar items together
5. Discuss patterns and decide on next actions

**Tips:**
- Require multiple items per color to force balanced thinking
- Don't discuss solutions during the exercise — just capture observations
- Buds are the most valuable output — they're the bridge from findings to opportunities

---

## Ideation

Methods for generating a large volume of ideas before narrowing down.

### Thumbnail Sketching

> Rapid small drawings to explore many visual possibilities quickly.

**Best for:** Early concept exploration; generating UI layout options; breaking out of the first idea
**Participants:** 3-8 (individual work, then group share)
**Time:** 20-40 minutes

**Process:**
1. Give each person a sheet divided into 6-8 small boxes
2. State the design challenge clearly
3. Set a timer: 2-3 minutes per sketch
4. Each person sketches a different approach in each box — quantity over quality
5. After individual sketching, each person presents their top 2-3 to the group
6. Group discusses patterns and selects concepts to develop further

**Tips:**
- Emphasize visual thinking, not drawing skill — stick figures are fine
- Short time limits prevent overthinking and self-editing
- Encourage truly different approaches in each box, not refinements of one idea
- First ideas are rarely the best — push past the obvious

---

### Creative Matrix

> Generate ideas at the intersections of two sets of categories.

**Best for:** Breaking out of habitual thinking; generating a high volume of diverse ideas
**Participants:** 4-8 in teams of 2-3
**Time:** 20-30 minutes

**Process:**
1. Draw a grid (max 5×5) on a large poster or whiteboard
2. Label **columns** with people categories (user types, personas, contexts)
3. Label **rows** with enabling categories (technologies, channels, touchpoints, constraints)
4. Give each team sticky notes and pens
5. Set a timer: 15-20 minutes
6. Teams ideate at each intersection — one idea per sticky note, placed in the cell
7. Tally ideas per team — reward quantity
8. Review and discuss the most promising intersections

**Example grid:**

|  | New User | Power User | Mobile User |
|---|---|---|---|
| **AI/ML** | ? | ? | ? |
| **Social** | ? | ? | ? |
| **Offline** | ? | ? | ? |

**Tips:**
- Choose categories that feel unrelated — the unusual intersections produce the freshest ideas
- Encourage drawing over writing
- Don't judge during generation — evaluation comes later

---

### Round Robin

> Ideas evolve as they pass from person to person.

**Best for:** Building on each other's ideas; ensuring all voices contribute equally; reducing dominance by loud voices
**Participants:** 4-5 per group
**Time:** 20-30 minutes

**Process:**
1. Give each person a worksheet folded into four sections
2. Section 1: Each person writes the challenge and an unconventional solution (3 min)
3. Pass worksheet to the left
4. Section 2: Write a reason why this proposal will fail (3 min)
5. Pass worksheet to the left
6. Section 3: Write a way to resolve the critique (3 min)
7. Pass worksheet to the left
8. Section 4: Refine or extend the solution (3 min)
9. Return to original owner; each person presents their evolved idea

**Tips:**
- Strict time limits keep energy high
- Encourage wild initial ideas — the critique/resolve cycle makes them practical
- The "why it will fail" step is the most valuable — it stress-tests ideas quickly

---

### Alternative Worlds

> Use analogous domains to generate fresh perspectives.

**Best for:** When the team is stuck; bringing outside inspiration; breaking industry-specific assumptions
**Participants:** 4-8
**Time:** 30-45 minutes

**Process:**
1. State the design challenge
2. Brainstorm analogous organizations or domains (e.g., "How would a hotel solve this? A hospital? A video game?")
3. Select 2-3 alternative worlds that are very different from yours
4. For each world, discuss: "How would [company/domain] approach our challenge?"
5. Extract principles and ideas that could translate to your context

**Example:**
- Challenge: "How might we reduce onboarding time for our B2B software?"
- Alternative world: Video games → Progressive tutorials, learn-by-doing, achievement unlocks
- Alternative world: IKEA → Visual-only assembly instructions, numbered steps, everything in the box
- Translate: "What if onboarding was a playable tutorial instead of a documentation link?"

**Tips:**
- Resist the temptation to use direct competitors — the point is radical difference
- If possible, interview someone who works in the alternative world
- Extract the **principle**, not the literal solution

---

## Prioritization

Methods for deciding what to do first.

### Importance/Difficulty Matrix

> Plot items on two axes to reveal quick wins and strategic investments.

**Best for:** Prioritizing features, backlog items, research findings, or design improvements
**Participants:** 4-8
**Time:** 30-45 minutes

**Process:**
1. Draw a large quad chart on a whiteboard
2. Label horizontal axis: **Importance** (or Impact) — low to high
3. Label vertical axis: **Difficulty** (or Cost/Effort) — low to high
4. Write each item on a sticky note
5. As a group, place each item by debating its relative position on both axes
6. Discuss the resulting quadrants:

| Quadrant | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| High importance, Low difficulty | **Quick wins** | Do these first |
| High importance, High difficulty | **Strategic investments** | Plan and resource these |
| Low importance, Low difficulty | **Fill-ins** | Do if time permits |
| Low importance, High difficulty | **Avoid** | Don't invest here |

**Tips:**
- Give each item a unique position — don't stack items at the same point
- Listen carefully during debates — the reasoning is as valuable as the placement
- This is a planning tool, not a scientific cost-benefit analysis
- Revisit after each sprint/cycle as importance and difficulty shift

---

### Bull's-Eye Diagramming

> Rank items into concentric rings of priority.

**Best for:** Forcing hard choices about what's essential vs. nice-to-have; simpler than a full matrix when you just need priority tiers
**Participants:** 4-8
**Time:** 20-30 minutes

**Process:**
1. Draw three concentric circles on a large poster
2. Label from center outward: **Primary** (must have), **Secondary** (should have), **Tertiary** (nice to have)
3. Write each item on a sticky note
4. As a group, debate and place each item in a ring
5. The center ring should be deliberately small — force tough choices

**Tips:**
- Size the center ring to fit only 3-5 items — this forces prioritization
- Enforce time limits on each debate (2-3 minutes per item)
- Tertiary doesn't mean irrelevant — it means "not now"

---

### Visualize the Vote (Dot Voting)

> Quick democratic poll to surface group preferences.

**Best for:** Narrowing down a large set of options quickly; making decisions after brainstorming; reducing the influence of the loudest voice
**Participants:** 4-15
**Time:** 5-10 minutes

**Process:**
1. Display all options on a wall (ideas, concepts, features, HMW statements)
2. Give each person voting tokens:
   - **1 large dot** for overall favorite
   - **2 small dots** for interesting details or specific aspects
3. Announce the voting criteria clearly (e.g., "Vote for the idea most likely to reduce onboarding time")
4. Everyone votes simultaneously (prevents anchoring)
5. Tally votes
6. Discuss: why did top items get votes? Any surprises?

**Tips:**
- Use different colored dots for different voting criteria
- Place detail votes on specific parts of a concept, not just the title
- Dot voting is a signal, not a final decision — use it to narrow, then discuss the top 3-5

---

### What's on Your Radar?

> People map items to concentric rings by personal significance.

**Best for:** Understanding individual priorities before group discussion; revealing hidden disagreements about what matters
**Participants:** 5-10
**Time:** 25-35 minutes

**Process:**
1. Draw a radar diagram: 3 concentric rings + 4-6 labeled segments (subcategories of the topic)
2. Label rings: Primary (center), Secondary, Tertiary
3. Give each person their own copy, a pen, and sticky notes
4. Individually: plot items according to personal significance (10-15 min)
5. Each person describes their radar to the group
6. Compare radars — look for consensus and divergence

**Tips:**
- Allow participants to add their own items and write in segment labels
- The most interesting output is where people disagree — those are the items worth discussing
- Follow up with dot voting or importance/difficulty matrix to converge

---

## Modeling & Communication

Methods for making ideas tangible and shareable.

### Storyboarding

> A sequence of drawings showing a concept in use.

**Best for:** Communicating a user scenario; making an abstract concept concrete; building team alignment on a proposed experience
**Participants:** 2-4 per storyboard
**Time:** 30-60 minutes

**Process:**
1. Choose a concept and a specific user scenario
2. Use a template with 8-12 blank frames
3. Draft the main story arc: beginning (context/trigger), middle (interaction), end (outcome)
4. Determine the main character (use a persona) and setting
5. Sketch key moments — one per frame
6. Add a caption below each frame describing what's happening
7. Present to the broader team for feedback

**Tips:**
- Draw like a comic book — vary angles (wide shot for context, close-up for detail)
- Include the emotional arc, not just the functional steps
- Show the "before" state (pain) and "after" state (resolution)
- Stick figures are perfectly fine — clarity matters more than art

---

### Concept Poster

> A one-page pitch for a new idea.

**Best for:** Presenting a concept to stakeholders; rally team around a vision; comparing multiple concepts side-by-side
**Participants:** 2-4 per poster
**Time:** 30-45 minutes

**Structure:**
1. **Name and tagline** — memorable, captures the essence
2. **Big picture illustration** — what does it look like?
3. **Summary** — 2-3 sentences on the core idea
4. **Key stakeholders** — who benefits and how
5. **Features and benefits** — 3-5 bullet points
6. **Timeline** — rough phases for development

**Tips:**
- Make the first draft quickly — don't overthink
- Display posters prominently (war room, Slack) to rally enthusiasm
- Use these to compare 2-3 competing concepts before committing

---

### Cover Story Mock-Up

> A mock magazine article describing the successful future of an idea.

**Best for:** Vision alignment; getting stakeholders excited; thinking through what success looks like in concrete terms
**Participants:** 3-6
**Time:** 45-60 minutes

**Process:**
1. Choose a relevant publication (real or fictional)
2. Date it 1-2 years in the future
3. Write a headline and subheading announcing your concept's success
4. Draw cover art
5. Write the first paragraph of the story — what happened, why it matters, who benefited
6. Add sidebar stories, callout quotes, and supporting details

**Tips:**
- Make it realistic — no fantasy outcomes, just ambitious plausible ones
- The exercise forces you to articulate what success actually looks like
- Great for kickoff meetings to align on vision before getting into details

---

## Workshop Planning Quick Reference

### Choosing the Right Activity

| You need to... | Use... | Time |
|---|---|---|
| Reframe findings as design opportunities | Statement Starters / HMW | 15-30 min |
| Find the root cause of a problem | Problem Tree Analysis | 30-45 min |
| Adjust the scope of a problem | Abstraction Laddering | 20-30 min |
| Debrief after research or a sprint | Rose, Thorn, Bud | 15-25 min |
| Generate many diverse ideas | Creative Matrix or Thumbnail Sketching | 20-40 min |
| Build on each other's ideas fairly | Round Robin | 20-30 min |
| Break out of industry assumptions | Alternative Worlds | 30-45 min |
| Prioritize a backlog or feature list | Importance/Difficulty Matrix | 30-45 min |
| Force hard choices about essentials | Bull's-Eye Diagramming | 20-30 min |
| Narrow down options quickly | Dot Voting | 5-10 min |
| Understand individual priorities | What's on Your Radar? | 25-35 min |
| Communicate a concept as a story | Storyboarding | 30-60 min |
| Pitch a concept on one page | Concept Poster | 30-45 min |
| Align on what success looks like | Cover Story Mock-Up | 45-60 min |

### Half-Day Workshop Template

A typical 3-hour workshop combining multiple methods:

| Time | Activity | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| 0:00-0:15 | Context setting | Share research findings, set goals |
| 0:15-0:35 | Rose, Thorn, Bud | Debrief findings as a team |
| 0:35-1:00 | Statement Starters / HMW | Reframe thorns and buds as design opportunities |
| 1:00-1:10 | Break | |
| 1:10-1:40 | Creative Matrix or Thumbnail Sketching | Generate ideas |
| 1:40-2:10 | Dot Voting + Discussion | Narrow to top ideas |
| 2:10-2:40 | Storyboarding (top 2-3 ideas) | Make ideas concrete |
| 2:40-3:00 | Importance/Difficulty Matrix | Prioritize and plan next steps |

### Facilitation Anti-Patterns

| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| **No time limits** | Activities drag; energy drops | Set and enforce timers for every step |
| **HiPPO dominance** | Highest-paid person's opinion wins | Use silent individual work before group discussion; dot voting |
| **Solving during framing** | Jump to solutions before understanding the problem | Separate framing and ideation into distinct phases |
| **Evaluating during generating** | "That won't work" kills ideas | Explicitly ban critique during brainstorming; save it for a later round |
| **Too many activities** | Workshop feels rushed; nothing goes deep | Pick 3-4 activities max for a half-day; go deep, not wide |
| **No follow-through** | Great ideas die on sticky notes | Assign owners and deadlines before leaving the room |
