Innovation Workshop method
Turns evidenced problems into open design questions.
How Might We distills an observed problem or insight into a question that opens possibilities and names a desired outcome. Scope and solution neutrality are examined together.
How might we enable the desired outcome in this situation without prescribing a solution?
How might we enable the desired outcome in this situation without prescribing a solution?
Ground in evidence
State one sourced problem or insight, its situation, and desired outcome.
Draft questions
Write several open How Might We questions without prescribing a solution.
Check scope
Test the selected question for outcome, audience, and workable boundaries.
Prepare ideation
Publish the selected question with evidence and boundaries for ideation.
Update when evidence or context changes.
When research or observation shows a concrete problem and a team needs an open ideation focus.
Traceable, revisable working state.
Gaps and next steps.
Fictional teaching example
Keep problem, evidence, variants, and scope separate.
What situation and problem are evidenced?
Households cannot confirm pickup readiness before travelling.
Which source supports the problem frame?
Fictional note F1, not research.
Which open How Might We questions are possible?
How might we make pickup readiness assessable?
Which question remains workable and within scope?
Before travel; no solution prescribed.
Keep example and work prompt separate.
Write one evidenced problem or insight with situation, affected group, and desired outcome.
With a stuck problem carrying many implicit assumptions, the method translates observations into open, workable questions. It sharpens the problem frame without pre-thinking the solution, turning frustration or fuzziness into a search space with clear direction.
The wording forces a distinction between the observed tension and the desired change. This produces a question form that stays neither too narrow nor too abstract and works well for ideation or prioritization. The quality lies in precise framing, because even small shifts in wording strongly influence the later variety of solutions.
How Might We works strongly because it translates problems into open, actionable search questions. The method helps especially when a phrasing carries serious problem understanding while still leaving enough room for different solution directions. Clarity is needed around a concrete audience, a clear tension in the sentence, and a checkable scope, so the question steers ideation instead of dissolving into generalities.
Derive the phrasings from real observations or clear product tensions, not from wish lists. The decisive point comes when questions become too broad or already lean toward a solution; then they need resharpening until several directions remain conceivable. Close with a small selection of strong questions and decide which one leads the next ideation round.
The method guide walks execution through 4 phases, timing, 4 pitfalls, and clear stop criteria.
Open method guideYour perspective
Your feedback helps shape the next improvements to methodatlas.
Compact agenda template for method sequences with timebox, purpose, and output.
Goal: ... Participants: ... Duration: ...
| Time | Method | Purpose | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| 00:00 | Check-in | Set focus | Shared start |
| 00:10 | How Might We | Ideation questions | HMW list |
| 00:35 | Brainwriting | Generate ideas | Idea pool |
| 01:10 | Dot Voting | Prepare selection | Prioritized ideas |
| 01:30 | Storyboarding | Make the concept tangible | Storyboard |
Decision, owner, next test.
Turn a sourced problem frame into open question variants and a clear ideation focus.
To be confirmed
To be confirmed
Develop one HMW question Time: 30–45 minutes
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
What situation and problem are evidenced?
...
Which source supports the problem frame?
...
Which open How Might We questions are possible?
...
Which question remains workable and within scope?
...
Blank worksheet: enter your own material.
Expected artifact: Situation · problem · source · desired outcome
Evidence, context, and source
Entry:
...
Expected artifact: HMW question · target · desired outcome
Evidence, context, and source
Entry:
...
Expected artifact: Outcome · target group · boundary
Evidence, context, and source
Entry:
...
Expected artifact: HMW question · evidence · boundaries · next session
Evidence, context, and source
Entry:
...
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/how-might-we/run-sheet
Fitting alternatives with decision guidance, followed by other related methods.
Instead of How Might We, when you want to generate many better questions first, before the group shifts into solution phrasing.
A strict timebox pushes quick idea volume first, then clusters and selects options after the burst is complete.
A single person uses a chosen prompt technique to create, sort, and sharpen ideas before group discussion starts.
Moves ideas, open questions, and testable next steps toward a concrete result through "place the core idea in the center", "label the six points with who, what, when, where, how, and why", and "mark gaps and follow-up questions".
Deliberately collects bad ideas, reverses their mechanics, and turns them into usable approaches.
Gathers ideas silently and iteratively, builds on them together, and produces prioritized concepts instead of loud individual impulses.
