methodatlas
Method guideInnovation

How Might We

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

ComplexityLow
Time30–45 min
Participants1-10
FormatWorkshop + async
MaturityCanonical
Plan the work
01

Prerequisite

What needs to be finished first

Complete firstConcrete frame

Situation, purpose, and sources are named.

Without a frame, the artifact is arbitrary.
02

Preparation

What needs to be ready before start

Materials

Sourced problem or insight notes, HMW sheet, timer, and separate space for variants and selection criteria.

People / roles

Facilitation, research or product, and people from the affected domain; keep the evidence source available.

Pre-read

Prepare one sourced problem or insight with situation, affected group, source, and desired outcome.

Time needed

30–45 minutes for framing, variants, and selection; ideation and validation follow.

Setup

Keep problem evidence, HMW variants, and selection criteria on separate surfaces. Each question opens a possibility and avoids feature or tool names.

03

Core question

The one question this method answers

How might we enable the desired outcome in this situation without prescribing a solution?

04

Flow

Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall

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.

HMW question sheet

Fictional teaching example

Keep problem, evidence, variants, and scope separate.

Problem and context

What situation and problem are evidenced?

Households cannot confirm pickup readiness before travelling.

Evidence

Which source supports the problem frame?

Fictional note F1, not research.

Question variants

Which open How Might We questions are possible?

How might we make pickup readiness assessable?

Selection and boundary

Which question remains workable and within scope?

Before travel; no solution prescribed.

Keep example and work prompt separate.

NN/G

  1. 1

    Ground in evidence

    Ground in evidence

    Goal

    The question remains anchored in a real problem.

    Inputs for this step

    • Sourced problem or insight

    Actions

    • Write the observed problem and its context before drafting a question.

    Output

    Situation · problem · source · desired outcome

    Evidence, context, and source

    Quality check

    Can the problem be traced to a source?

    Pitfall

    A solution is disguised as the problem. Describe the situation and outcome before drafting.

    Timing: 5–10 minutes

  2. 2

    Draft questions

    Draft questions

    Goal

    Variants open useful directions.

    Inputs for this step

    • Problem frame and desired outcome

    Actions

    • Draft multiple solution-neutral variants.

    Output

    HMW question · target · desired outcome

    Evidence, context, and source

    Quality check

    Do the variants allow different solutions?

    Pitfall

    The question names a feature or tool. Remove solution language and write variants.

    Timing: 10–15 minutes

  3. 3

    Check scope

    Check scope

    Goal

    The question is open yet actionable.

    Inputs for this step

    • Question variants and selection criteria

    Actions

    • Narrow the situation or outcome when the question is too broad.

    Output

    Outcome · target group · boundary

    Evidence, context, and source

    Quality check

    Could a team act on this scope?

    Pitfall

    The question is too broad to act on. Bound the audience, situation, or desired outcome.

    Timing: 10 minutes

  4. 4

    Prepare ideation

    Prepare ideation

    Goal

    Ideation starts from a shared, bounded challenge.

    Inputs for this step

    • Selected HMW and evidence boundary

    Actions

    • Share the question, evidence status, and constraints before ideation.

    Output

    HMW question · evidence · boundaries · next session

    Evidence, context, and source

    Quality check

    Are evidence status and constraints explicit?

    Pitfall

    The HMW is treated as evidence or priority. Keep evidence status and constraints beside the question.

    Timing: 5–10 minutes

05

Artifact

What comes out at the end

Sketch: what the artifact looks like

How Might We · Opportunity FramingResearch-Insights in offene, positive und lösungseinladende Ideation-Fragen übersetzen
How Might WeDas Visual zeigt, wie ein Research Insight in offene How-Might-We-Fragen und mehrere Scope-Varianten übersetzt wird.Probleme so rahmen, dass Ideation möglich wirdHow-Might-We-Fragen öffnen den Lösungsraum, ohne das zugrunde liegende Insight zu verlieren.reframeVariantenScopeTwistInsightNutzende brechen ab, wenn der nächsteSchritt unklar ist.HMW-FrageWie könnten wir den nächsten Schritt sofortverständlich machen?breiterWie könnten wir Orientierung frühergeben?engerWie könnten wir CTA-Labels klären?umgedrehtWie könnten wir Unsicherheit nutzbarmachen?offenpositivnicht zu groß
Form

HMW brief with problem source, variants, selected question, scope, and evidence boundary.

Versioning / ownership

Version the problem source, context, date, and selected question together. Changed evidence produces a new question version.

Tool alternatives
  • HMW question sheet or paper cards
  • Source references beside the problem frame
  • Timer and criteria area for selection

workshop-agenda-markdown.md

Compact agenda template for method sequences with timebox, purpose, and output.

Workshop Agenda

Goal: ... Participants: ... Duration: ...

TimeMethodPurposeOutput
00:00Check-inSet focusShared start
00:10How Might WeIdeation questionsHMW list
00:35BrainwritingGenerate ideasIdea pool
01:10Dot VotingPrepare selectionPrioritized ideas
01:30StoryboardingMake the concept tangibleStoryboard

Close-out

Decision, owner, next test.

how-might-we-working-template.md

Turn a sourced problem frame into open question variants and a clear ideation focus.

How Might We: Worksheet

Question

To be confirmed

Desired outcome

To be confirmed

Scope

Develop one HMW question Time: 30–45 minutes

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

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

  • Materials: Sourced problem or insight notes, HMW sheet, timer, and separate space for variants and selection criteria.
  • Roles: Facilitation, research or product, and people from the affected domain; keep the evidence source available.
  • Advance information: Prepare one sourced problem or insight with situation, affected group, source, and desired outcome.
  • Overall time needed: 30–45 minutes for framing, variants, and selection; ideation and validation follow.
  • Setup: Keep problem evidence, HMW variants, and selection criteria on separate surfaces. Each question opens a possibility and avoids feature or tool names.

Prepare for the work steps

Ground in evidence: Ground in evidence

  • Sourced problem or insight

Draft questions: Draft questions

  • Problem frame and desired outcome

Check scope: Check scope

  • Question variants and selection criteria

Prepare ideation: Prepare ideation

  • Selected HMW and evidence boundary

HMW question sheet

Problem and context

What situation and problem are evidenced?

...

Evidence

Which source supports the problem frame?

...

Question variants

Which open How Might We questions are possible?

...

Selection and boundary

Which question remains workable and within scope?

...

Blank worksheet: enter your own material.

NN/G

Ground in evidence: Ground in evidence

Expected artifact: Situation · problem · source · desired outcome

Evidence, context, and source

Entry:

...

  • Can the problem be traced to a source?

Draft questions: Draft questions

Expected artifact: HMW question · target · desired outcome

Evidence, context, and source

Entry:

...

  • Do the variants allow different solutions?

Check scope: Check scope

Expected artifact: Outcome · target group · boundary

Evidence, context, and source

Entry:

...

  • Could a team act on this scope?

Prepare ideation: Prepare ideation

Expected artifact: HMW question · evidence · boundaries · next session

Evidence, context, and source

Entry:

...

  • Are evidence status and constraints explicit?

Open questions and next steps

...

Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/how-might-we/run-sheet

06

Example output

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

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

how-might-we-beispiel.md

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional teaching example: tool lending

All details are invented and are not research. A fictional problem is that households cannot tell whether the reservation and accessories are ready before travelling.

Variants

  • How might we help households assess pickup readiness before travelling?
  • How might we reduce uncertainty between reservation and pickup?
  • How might we support repair preparation when information is incomplete?

Selected question

How might we help households assess pickup readiness before travelling?

The question does not prescribe an app or notification. It is bounded to the pre-travel situation. The fictional observation is not evidence; real inquiry follows.

07

Pitfalls

Recognize symptoms and steer against them

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

  1. Ground in evidenceA solution is disguised as the problem.View in phase
  2. Draft questionsThe question names a feature or tool.View in phase
  3. Check scopeThe question is too broad to act on.View in phase
  4. Prepare ideationThe HMW is treated as evidence or priority.View in phase
08

Stop criteria

When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach

Remove feature and tool names.
Bound situation, group, or desired outcome.
Keep the HMW separate from evidence.

Where to go next?

A paper-based illustration representing Brainstorming with its core stages and visible working result.
Innovation
Brainstorming

Opens up the idea space of the next session with the formulated question.

Paper illustration of an eight-panel idea sheet with varied sketches beside a timer set to eight minutes.
Innovation
Crazy 8s

Uses the HMW question as the focused challenge for eight sketches.

View in playbookModerate Solution IdeationMove from problem understanding to many ideas, structured selection, and first concept.

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 profileMore methods