Method guideDecision Making

Decision Framing Workshop

A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.

ComplexityMedium

Time60-120 min

Participants4-10

FormatWorkshop

MaturityEstablished

Plan Decision Framing Workshop

Prerequisite

What needs to be finished first

Complete firstClear boundary

Clarify mandate and decision owner; interview stakeholders about the decision, boundaries, interests, and contested assumptions.

Without a boundary, cases, periods, or variables become mixed.

Complete firstEvidence access

Decision mandate, stakeholder and scope map, objectives, alternatives, uncertainties, evidence sources, and decision log

Missing sources remain visible as uncertainty.

Preparation

What needs to be ready before start

Materials

Decision mandate, stakeholder and scope map, objectives, alternatives, uncertainties, evidence sources, and decision log

People / roles

Decision owner · key stakeholders · domain/data experts · facilitator · scribe

Pre-read

Clarify mandate and decision owner; interview stakeholders about the decision, boundaries, interests, and contested assumptions.

Time needed

120–180 minutes plus pre-interviews where scope is contested.

Setup

Prepare a workspace with Decision · Scope · Objectives · Options · Evidence; separate example from live data.

Core question

The one question this method answers

What decision is pending now, who owns it, which objectives, alternatives, and uncertainties belong in the frame, and what analysis is needed before deciding?

Flow

Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall

A decision framing workshop turns a decision into a precise question with context, criteria, and constraints. The shared frame reveals missing information, needed perspectives, and a suitable decision mode.

Decision Framing Workshop · working structure

Fictional example

Fictional values show the actual method fields.

Decision Framing Workshop · working structure
Frame field	Working question	Fictional content	Owner/source	Status
DecisionAdd evidence and rationale.	Who decides what by when?	Operations chooses the Saturday model on 28 Oct for January onward.	Operations lead	Approved
ScopeAdd evidence and rationale.	What is in, out, fixed, or open?	In: Hamburg/Saturday; out: price/weekdays; fixed: labour/fire code.	Decision owner + stakeholders	Approved
ObjectivesAdd evidence and rationale.	Which fundamental values and red lines matter?	p80 wait; errors <1%; warehouse load; emergency access; effort.	Stakeholder group	Approved
AlternativesAdd evidence and rationale.	Which real actions include status quo?	A status quo; B fixed slots; C dynamic slots; D slots plus buffer.	Operations + Product	Open for additions
UncertaintyAdd evidence and rationale.	Which tipping question changes the choice?	Emergencies/month and achievable p80 flip B versus D.	Lea, four-Saturday pilot	Due 21 Oct

1. Working question
Decision
Who decides what by when?
Scope
What is in, out, fixed, or open?
Objectives
Which fundamental values and red lines matter?
Alternatives
Which real actions include status quo?
Uncertainty
Which tipping question changes the choice?
2. Fictional content
Decision
Operations chooses the Saturday model on 28 Oct for January onward.
Scope
In: Hamburg/Saturday; out: price/weekdays; fixed: labour/fire code.
Objectives
p80 wait; errors <1%; warehouse load; emergency access; effort.
Alternatives
A status quo; B fixed slots; C dynamic slots; D slots plus buffer.
Uncertainty
Emergencies/month and achievable p80 flip B versus D.
3. Owner/source
Decision
Operations lead
Scope
Decision owner + stakeholders
Objectives
Stakeholder group
Alternatives
Operations + Product
Uncertainty
Lea, four-Saturday pilot
4. Status
Decision
Approved
Scope
Approved
Objectives
Approved
Alternatives
Open for additions
Uncertainty
Due 21 Oct

All values are fictional.

Reference · original teaching example

1
Decision
Decision statement
Goal
Decision statement: Clarify decision owner, choice statement, date, and downstream decision it enables.
Inputs for this step
- Clarify mandate and decision owner; interview stakeholders about the decision, boundaries, interests, and contested assumptions.
- Decision mandate, stakeholder and scope map, objectives, alternatives, uncertainties, evidence sources, and decision log
Actions
- Clarify decision owner, choice statement, date, and downstream decision it enables.
Output
Decision statement
Clarify decision owner, choice statement, date, and downstream decision it enables.
Quality check
Does the statement contain a concrete choice and empowered owner?
Pitfall
The workshop is asked to solve the pickup problem. State choice, owner, timing, and downstream use explicitly.
Timing: 20–25 minutes
2
Scope
Scope map
Goal
Scope map: Mark in/out, horizon, affected groups, fixed boundaries, and interfaces.
Inputs for this step
- Decision statement
Actions
- Mark in/out, horizon, affected groups, fixed boundaries, and interfaces.
Output
Scope map
Mark in/out, horizon, affected groups, fixed boundaries, and interfaces.
Quality check
Are contested boundaries visible as decisions or assumptions?
Pitfall
Participants use different system boundaries. Jointly mark every boundary as in, out, fixed, or open.
Timing: 20–30 minutes
3
Objectives
Objective hierarchy
Goal
Objective hierarchy: Derive fundamental objectives, measures, and red lines from stakeholder perspectives.
Inputs for this step
- Scope map
Actions
- Derive fundamental objectives, measures, and red lines from stakeholder perspectives.
Output
Objective hierarchy
Derive fundamental objectives, measures, and red lines from stakeholder perspectives.
Quality check
Are objectives independent of preferred solutions and free of double counting?
Pitfall
Means such as introduce slots are listed as objectives. Ask why and move means beneath their objective.
Timing: 20–30 minutes
4
Options
Alternative space
Goal
Alternative space: Phrase status quo and distinct feasible alternatives at the right decision level.
Inputs for this step
- Objective hierarchy
Actions
- Phrase status quo and distinct feasible alternatives at the right decision level.
Output
Alternative space
Phrase status quo and distinct feasible alternatives at the right decision level.
Quality check
Are at least two real actions and status quo comparable?
Pitfall
A preferred solution is compared with a straw option. Specify mechanism and required capabilities for each option.
Timing: 20–30 minutes
5
Evidence
Evidence plan
Goal
Evidence plan: Set key uncertainties, tipping values, sources, owners, and decision process; approve frame.
Inputs for this step
- Alternative space
Actions
- Set key uncertainties, tipping values, sources, owners, and decision process; approve frame.
Output
Evidence plan
Set key uncertainties, tipping values, sources, owners, and decision process; approve frame.
Quality check
Is it clear which uncertainty can change the choice and who resolves it by when?
Pitfall
The frame ends as a poster without a decision path. Record tipping questions, evidence owners, date, decision rule, and revisit triggers.
Timing: 20–35 minutes

Artifact

What comes out at the end

Sketch: what the artifact looks like

Decision Framing Workshop · Decision FrameClarify decision question, mandate, options, criteria, constraints, and evidence needs before evaluation starts

Form

Approved decision frame with decision statement, scope, objectives, alternatives, uncertainties, evidence plan, and revisit rules.

Versioning / ownership

Record date, owner, source state, and review date; preserve prior versions.

Tool alternatives

Decision-frame canvas
Objective and stakeholder map
Uncertainty/evidence log

decision-frame-markdown.md

Set subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.

Decision Framing Workshop: Worksheet

Question

To be confirmed

Desired outcome

To be confirmed

Scope

Complete run Time: 120–180 minutes plus pre-interviews where scope is contested.

Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

Materials: Decision mandate, stakeholder and scope map, objectives, alternatives, uncertainties, evidence sources, and decision log
Roles: Decision owner · key stakeholders · domain/data experts · facilitator · scribe
Advance information: Clarify mandate and decision owner; interview stakeholders about the decision, boundaries, interests, and contested assumptions.
Overall time needed: 120–180 minutes plus pre-interviews where scope is contested.
Setup: Prepare a workspace with Decision · Scope · Objectives · Options · Evidence; separate example from live data.

Prepare for the work steps

Decision: Decision statement

Clarify mandate and decision owner; interview stakeholders about the decision, boundaries, interests, and contested assumptions.
Decision mandate, stakeholder and scope map, objectives, alternatives, uncertainties, evidence sources, and decision log

Scope: Scope map

Decision statement

Objectives: Objective hierarchy

Scope map

Options: Alternative space

Objective hierarchy

Evidence: Evidence plan

Alternative space

Decision Framing Workshop · working structure

Frame field	Working question	Fictional content	Owner/source	Status
Decision
Scope
Objectives
Alternatives
Uncertainty

Decision: Add evidence and rationale.
Scope: Add evidence and rationale.
Objectives: Add evidence and rationale.
Alternatives: Add evidence and rationale.
Uncertainty: Add evidence and rationale.

The blank worksheet contains prompts only.

Reference · original teaching example

Decision: Decision statement

Expected artifact: Decision statement

Clarify decision owner, choice statement, date, and downstream decision it enables.

Entry:

...

Does the statement contain a concrete choice and empowered owner?

Scope: Scope map

Expected artifact: Scope map

Mark in/out, horizon, affected groups, fixed boundaries, and interfaces.

Entry:

...

Are contested boundaries visible as decisions or assumptions?

Objectives: Objective hierarchy

Expected artifact: Objective hierarchy

Derive fundamental objectives, measures, and red lines from stakeholder perspectives.

Entry:

...

Are objectives independent of preferred solutions and free of double counting?

Options: Alternative space

Expected artifact: Alternative space

Phrase status quo and distinct feasible alternatives at the right decision level.

Entry:

...

Are at least two real actions and status quo comparable?

Evidence: Evidence plan

Expected artifact: Evidence plan

Set key uncertainties, tipping values, sources, owners, and decision process; approve frame.

Entry:

...

Is it clear which uncertainty can change the choice and who resolves it by when?

Open questions and next steps

...

Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/decision-framing-workshop/run-sheet

Example output

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional example for orientation. Counts and timings describe this case and are not universal requirements.

decision-framing-workshop-beispiel.md

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional teaching example: Decision Framing Workshop · working structure

Frame field	Working question	Fictional content	Owner/source	Status
Decision	Who decides what by when?	Operations chooses the Saturday model on 28 Oct for January onward.	Operations lead	Approved
Scope	What is in, out, fixed, or open?	In: Hamburg/Saturday; out: price/weekdays; fixed: labour/fire code.	Decision owner + stakeholders	Approved
Objectives	Which fundamental values and red lines matter?	p80 wait; errors <1%; warehouse load; emergency access; effort.	Stakeholder group	Approved
Alternatives	Which real actions include status quo?	A status quo; B fixed slots; C dynamic slots; D slots plus buffer.	Operations + Product	Open for additions
Uncertainty	Which tipping question changes the choice?	Emergencies/month and achievable p80 flip B versus D.	Lea, four-Saturday pilot	Due 21 Oct

Pitfalls

Recognize symptoms and steer against them

Quick overview, the full text is in the matching phase in the flow

Decision statementThe workshop is asked to solve the pickup problem.View in phase
Scope mapParticipants use different system boundaries.View in phase
Objective hierarchyMeans such as introduce slots are listed as objectives.View in phase
Alternative spaceA preferred solution is compared with a straw option.View in phase
Evidence planThe frame ends as a poster without a decision path.View in phase

Stop criteria

When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach

Stop Decision: Does the statement contain a concrete choice and empowered owner?

Stop Scope: Are contested boundaries visible as decisions or assumptions?

Stop Objectives: Are objectives independent of preferred solutions and free of double counting?

Stop Options: Are at least two real actions and status quo comparable?

Stop Evidence: Is it clear which uncertainty can change the choice and who resolves it by when?

Where to go next?

Decision Making

Option Framing

Shapes the alternatives gathered in the workshop into comparable options.

Decision Making

Trade-off Analysis

Uses the evidence plan to later weigh the alternatives against criteria.

View in playbookPrepare Architecture DecisionMove from a fuzzy technical problem to a documented, traceable architecture decision.

Finished the method guide?

Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.

Go to profile More methods

Decision Framing Workshop · working structure

1. Working question

2. Fictional content

3. Owner/source

4. Status

Decision statement

Scope map

Objective hierarchy

Alternative space

Evidence plan

decision-frame-markdown.md

Decision Framing Workshop: Worksheet

Question

Desired outcome

Scope

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

Prepare for the work steps

Decision: Decision statement

Scope: Scope map

Objectives: Objective hierarchy

Options: Alternative space

Evidence: Evidence plan

Decision Framing Workshop · working structure

Decision: Decision statement

Scope: Scope map

Objectives: Objective hierarchy

Options: Alternative space

Evidence: Evidence plan

Open questions and next steps

decision-framing-workshop-beispiel.md

Fictional teaching example: Decision Framing Workshop · working structure

Decision statement

Scope map

Objective hierarchy

Alternative space

Evidence plan

Where to go next?

Finished the method guide?