Complete firstDecision Framing Workshop
The problem, goal, or decision is described clearly enough to apply the method to a defined scope.
Without: Without a clear scope, the team collects material but cannot derive a robust structure or a decision.
RunsheetInnovation
Contradiction Analysis
ComplexityMedium
Time60-120 min
Participants2-8
FormatWorkshop
MaturityEstablished
01
Prerequisite
What needs to be finished first
02
Preparation
What needs to be ready before start
Materials
Whiteboard or document for contradiction statement; existing notes, data, decisions, and assumptions; markers for uncertainty, owners, and next steps.
People / roles
Facilitator; subject-matter experts from the relevant area; one owner for result and follow-up; a named decider for decisions.
Pre-read
Scope, trigger, known facts, relevant constraints, existing options or events, and the intended session outcome.
Time needed
60-120 min
Setup
Prepare an empty template for the contradiction statement. Keep scope and working question visible. Mark every assumption as an assumption, not as a fact.
03
Core question
The one question this method answers
Which improvement causes which downside, and which assumption makes the contradiction appear unavoidable?
04
Flow
Marker: Phase
| Step | Duration | Action | Hint |
|---|---|---|---|
1Fix scope | 10-20 min | Define the trigger, goal, and boundaries of consideration. Collect non-fitting topics on a parking lot. | A tighter scope creates better outcomes than a broad but unfocused sweep. |
2Collect raw material | 20-40 min | Gather and make visible facts, events, options, constraints, and assumptions. | Keep facts and interpretations separate. Mark uncertainties rather than smoothing them out. |
3Build structure | 30-60 min | Fill the contradiction statement step by step, clarify relationships between elements, and make contradictions visible. | Do not evaluate too early. Stabilize the structure first, then draw conclusions. |
4Check and condense | 20-40 min | Mark gaps, weak assumptions, counterexamples, and critical paths. Check the result for clarity and readability. | If no one can explain the logic in two minutes, the artifact is not ready. |
5Define next steps | 15-20 min | Document decision, experiment, test, measure, or follow-up with owner and date. | A high-quality artifact without a next action remains knowledge work without impact. |
05
Artifact
What comes out at the end
Form
Contradiction statement with trigger, scope, core elements, assumptions, marked gaps, result interpretation, and next step with owner and date.
Versioning / ownership
Store artifact with date, scope, and participants. For new evidence, add a new version or change note to keep decision logic traceable.
Tool alternatives
- Miro or FigJam
- Lucidchart or draw.io
- Confluence or Notion
- Google Docs or Sheets
- Markdown in repository
contradiction-analysis-working-template.md
Compact working template for Contradiction Analysis with context, input, output artifacts, and next step.
Contradiction Analysis Working Template
Goal
TRIZ-adjacent method that makes technical or organizational contradictions visible and formulates them so they can be solved.
Context
When and for what do we use this method?
Input
Which data, observations, decisions, or materials are available?
Execution
Short notes along the runsheet.
Output artifacts
- Contradiction Statement:
- Abstraction Notes:
- Solution Principles:
- Concept Ideas:
Assumptions and open questions
- ...
Decision / Next step
Owner, date, and success signal.
06
Example output
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
contradiction-analysis-beispiel.md
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Contradiction Analysis - More security without longer onboarding
Scope: A specific project area is considered, not the whole company. Working question: Which improvement causes which downside, and which assumption makes the contradiction appear unavoidable?
Artifact excerpt:
- Fact 1: Current observation is documented and sourced.
- Assumption 1: The most important causal relation is plausible, but not yet proven.
- Critical point: One open condition decides whether the preferred direction is viable.
Result: The team selects a focused next step with owner and date. Signal: Move from target conflict to solution principles.
07
Pitfalls
Recognize symptoms and steer against them
Trap
Scope drifts
Symptom
New topics are added continuously and the artifact loses focus.
What to do
Keep scope visible and move new topics to the parking lot.
Trap
Assumptions become facts
Symptom
The discussion sounds certain even though evidence is missing.
What to do
Mark every uncertain statement and define a validation point.
Trap
Too early for solutions
Symptom
The team moves to actions within minutes.
What to do
Create the full structure first, then derive options or measures.
Trap
No counter-check
Symptom
The artifact confirms only the favorite hypothesis.
What to do
Ask explicitly for counterexamples, negative branches, or excluded options.
Trap
No owner
Symptom
The result is understandable, but nobody follows it through.
What to do
Always document the next step with owner, date, and success signal.
08
Stop criteria
Done signals checkable in under a minute
Trigger or scope is not clear.
There is no raw material or no participants with contextual knowledge.
The method is used to legitimize an already made decision.
Important assumptions cannot be discussed openly.
No owner is available for outcome or follow-up.
Finished the runsheet?
Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.