Session Brief: Assumption Mapping

Goal

Artifact: Assumption map

Working Question

Which assumptions do we need to validate first because they are both critical to the initiative and uncertain?

Context

Initiative description; known hypotheses; research status (validated, open, disproved); existing test backlog items; time horizon for validation.

Setup

• Format: Method session
• Duration: 45-60 min
• Mode: Workshop or async
• Participants: One facilitator with discovery experience; Product Owner or strategy owner; 3-7 participants from product, engineering, research, and sales for a mix of perspectives; optionally a Devil's Advocate.
• Owner: One facilitator with discovery experience
• Participation mode: Team round, shared work and alignment
• Outcome logic: Finish artifact

Participation Logic

Use the session for shared understanding. Contributions are collected visibly, assumptions are aligned, and open differences remain traceable in the artifact.

Outcome Logic

The session works directly toward Assumption map. After the session, the artifact should be shareable, reviewable, or reusable.

Input

2x2 matrix as a whiteboard or digital board (axes: importance and uncertainty); sticky notes for assumptions; markers; example assumptions from comparable projects; initiative description visible.

Preparation

Put the matrix on the wall: X-axis uncertainty (low on the left, high on the right), Y-axis importance (low at the bottom, critical at the top). Label all four quadrants (critical to test in the top right, known in the bottom left). Put the initiative statement at the top. Set the timer to 45 min.

Agenda

1. Phase 1: Collect assumptions (10-15 min) Owner: Facilitator Action: Everyone writes down the assumptions underlying the initiative on their own first. Trigger categories: desirability, viability, feasibility, usability. Hint: Phrase assumptions explicitly as 'We assume that ...'. Anything stated as a fact is suspicious and usually also an assumption. Output: Assumption map

2. Phase 2: Rate importance (10 min) Owner: Facilitator Action: For each assumption: if it is wrong, does the initiative break? Y-axis: high (showstopper) to low (tolerable). Move the sticky notes to the right height. Hint: Importance is often underestimated for supposedly obvious things. Ask for each assumption: what happens if the opposite is true? Output: Test backlog

3. Phase 3: Rate uncertainty (10 min) Owner: Facilitator Action: For each assumption: how much evidence do we have? X-axis: left (validated several times) to right (pure guess). Include research or past tests. Hint: Personal experience is not evidence for a target group. If the answer is just 'we believe so', it belongs on the uncertain side. Output: Risk ranking

4. Phase 4: Top risks in the upper right quadrant (5-10 min) Owner: Facilitator Action: The upper-right quadrant (critical + uncertain) becomes the test backlog. Prioritize the top 3-5 assumptions there for the next validation round. Hint: If there are 10+ assumptions in the red quadrant, there are too many critical unknowns. The initiative is too early or the scope is too broad. Split it up. Output: Assumption map

5. Phase 5: Tests per top assumption (10-15 min) Owner: Owner Action: For each top assumption, choose a validation method: interview, survey, prototype test, fake door, competitor analysis, data spike. Note success criteria and owner. Estimate effort. Hint: The method must fit the assumption. You do not validate desirability with an engineering spike. You do not validate feasibility with a survey. Output: Test backlog

6. Publish artifact (10 min) Owner: Owner Action: Check the artifact for completeness, define location, set version or status, and name review recipients. Output: Assumption map

Closeout

• Update result artifact: Assumption map
• Define location, version, and review recipients.
• Define owner, next step, and review date.

Assumption map: Assumption Mapping

Working Question

Which assumptions do we need to validate first because they are both critical to the initiative and uncertain?

Context

Initiative description; known hypotheses; research status (validated, open, disproved); existing test backlog items; time horizon for validation.

Participants

• Owner: One facilitator with discovery experience
• Participants: One facilitator with discovery experience; Product Owner or strategy owner; 3-7 participants from product, engineering, research, and sales for a mix of perspectives; optionally a Devil's Advocate.

Input

2x2 matrix as a whiteboard or digital board (axes: importance and uncertainty); sticky notes for assumptions; markers; example assumptions from comparable projects; initiative description visible.

Template

• Formulate assumption as a testable statement
• Assess risk
• Assess level of knowledge
• Add data source or test idea
• Mark riskiest assumption
• Define success criterion
• Set owner and date

Completion Check

• Assumption map is complete enough for review:
• Location:
• Version / status:
• Review by:
• Next step:

Next Step

• Review result
• Mark open questions
• Schedule review or decision