Purpose
In early decisions, alternatives are often still vague, incomplete, or blended together. Option Framing brings every possibility into a comparable form and makes visible which variant actually fits the question.
Decision Making Decision method
Option Framing
Turns rough options into comparable descriptions with assumptions and consequences for a meaningful shortlist.
Jede Option wird so beschrieben, dass Annahmen, Konsequenzen und Vergleichbarkeit klar werden. Dadurch schrumpfen Rohideen zu prüfbaren Entscheidungsräumen statt zu losen Einfällen. Die Methode verbessert nicht nur Auswahl, sondern auch die Qualität dessen, was überhaupt als Option gilt.
Which genuinely distinct and feasible courses of action cover the decision space without mixing solutions, objectives, and assumptions?
- Participants
- 3-8
- Time
- 75–120 minutes for one decision; evidence work and evaluation follow separately.
The steps form one complete method run.
Frame
Choice frame
Phrase the decision as a choice with owner, timing, scope, and boundaries.
Objectives
Objective view
Capture fundamental objectives and red lines without disguising solution features as objectives.
Options
Option space
Build status quo, discrete mechanisms, and useful hybrids from independent design dimensions.
Consequences
Option cards
Describe expected effects, side effects, reversibility, and dependencies per option.
Gaps
Testable frame
Check duplicates, infeasible options, and information gaps; set next analysis step.
Add new evidence at review and version decisions with the prior state.
A good fit when
Bei frühen Entscheidungen sind Alternativen oft noch unscharf, unvollständig oder vermischt. Option Framing bringt jede Möglichkeit in eine vergleichbare Form und macht sichtbar, welche Variante wirklich zur Frage passt.
Ideal for
- Preparation for complex decisions
- Strategy and product options
- Architecture variants
Not good for
- Pure root-cause analysis
- A single option without alternatives
- Acute incident response
Outputs
Testable frame
Option frame with status quo, discrete and hybrid options, mechanism, expected consequences, reversibility, and open evidence questions.
Option Framing · working structure
Fictional example
Fictional values show the actual method fields.
| Option | Mechanism | Required capability | Expected consequences | Reversibility | Tipping question |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A · Status quoAdd evidence and rationale. | Unmanaged arrival | No new capability | p80 18–24 min; emergencies immediate | Fully | Is current variation seasonal? |
| B · Fixed slotsAdd evidence and rationale. | 30-minute windows smooth arrivals | Booking and slot discipline | p80 12–14 min; predictable load | Reversible pilot | Do workshops keep slots? |
| C · Dynamic slotsAdd evidence and rationale. | Forecast adjusts capacity continuously | Forecast and live inventory | p80 9–13 min; high flexibility | Partly reversible | Does forecast reach needed quality? |
| D · Slots plus bufferAdd evidence and rationale. | Fixed slots reserve 10% for emergencies | Release rule 60 min before | Predictability plus emergency access | Reversible pilot | How often is buffer unused? |
1. Mechanism
- A · Status quo
- Unmanaged arrival
- B · Fixed slots
- 30-minute windows smooth arrivals
- C · Dynamic slots
- Forecast adjusts capacity continuously
- D · Slots plus buffer
- Fixed slots reserve 10% for emergencies
2. Required capability
- A · Status quo
- No new capability
- B · Fixed slots
- Booking and slot discipline
- C · Dynamic slots
- Forecast and live inventory
- D · Slots plus buffer
- Release rule 60 min before
3. Expected consequences
- A · Status quo
- p80 18–24 min; emergencies immediate
- B · Fixed slots
- p80 12–14 min; predictable load
- C · Dynamic slots
- p80 9–13 min; high flexibility
- D · Slots plus buffer
- Predictability plus emergency access
4. Reversibility
- A · Status quo
- Fully
- B · Fixed slots
- Reversible pilot
- C · Dynamic slots
- Partly reversible
- D · Slots plus buffer
- Reversible pilot
5. Tipping question
- A · Status quo
- Is current variation seasonal?
- B · Fixed slots
- Do workshops keep slots?
- C · Dynamic slots
- Does forecast reach needed quality?
- D · Slots plus buffer
- How often is buffer unused?
All values are fictional.
First step
Set decision, owner, deadline, scope, and non-negotiable boundaries; defer evaluation until the option set is complete.
Deep dive
How it works
Each option is described so that assumptions, consequences, and comparability become clear. This shrinks raw ideas into testable decision spaces instead of loose notions. The method improves not just selection but also the quality of what counts as an option in the first place.
In detail
Option Framing sits between idea collection and decision. The method prevents immature ideas from being judged too early by translating each option into comparable parts. These include contribution to the goal, assumptions, effort, risks, dependencies, reversibility, and consequences. Only then are the options truly ready to be compared.
Facilitation
Use one consistent template for all options and give teams short timeboxes to work them out. Make sure options are not made unfairly attractive or unattractive through wording. End with a shortlist that can be carried into trade-off analysis or a decision matrix.
The method guide walks execution through 5 phases, timing, 5 pitfalls, and clear stop criteria.
Open method guideYour perspective
Does this method help with your work?
Your feedback helps shape the next improvements to methodatlas.
Sources and topics
Artifact templates
Option Framing: WorksheetSet subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.markdown
Option Framing: WorksheetSet subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.
markdownoption-frame-markdown.md
Set subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.
Option Framing: Worksheet
Question
To be confirmed
Desired outcome
To be confirmed
Scope
Complete run Time: 75–120 minutes for one decision; evidence work and evaluation follow separately.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
Preparation for this scope
Method setup
- Materials: Decision statement, objectives and boundaries, status quo, option cards, consequence hypotheses, and assumption log
- Roles: Decision owner · affected stakeholders · domain perspectives · facilitator
- Advance information: Set decision, owner, deadline, scope, and non-negotiable boundaries; defer evaluation until the option set is complete.
- Overall time needed: 75–120 minutes for one decision; evidence work and evaluation follow separately.
- Setup: Prepare a workspace with Frame · Objectives · Options · Consequences · Gaps; separate example from live data.
Prepare for the work steps
Frame: Choice frame
- Set decision, owner, deadline, scope, and non-negotiable boundaries; defer evaluation until the option set is complete.
- Decision statement, objectives and boundaries, status quo, option cards, consequence hypotheses, and assumption log
Objectives: Objective view
- Choice frame
Options: Option space
- Objective view
Consequences: Option cards
- Option space
Gaps: Testable frame
- Option cards
Option Framing · working structure
| Option | Mechanism | Required capability | Expected consequences | Reversibility | Tipping question |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A · Status quo | |||||
| B · Fixed slots | |||||
| C · Dynamic slots | |||||
| D · Slots plus buffer |
- A · Status quo: Add evidence and rationale.
- B · Fixed slots: Add evidence and rationale.
- C · Dynamic slots: Add evidence and rationale.
- D · Slots plus buffer: Add evidence and rationale.
The blank worksheet contains prompts only.
Reference · original teaching example
Frame: Choice frame
Expected artifact: Choice frame
Phrase the decision as a choice with owner, timing, scope, and boundaries.
Entry:
...
- Can the owner choose among named actions by a date?
Objectives: Objective view
Expected artifact: Objective view
Capture fundamental objectives and red lines without disguising solution features as objectives.
Entry:
...
- Does each objective state a desired consequence for affected people?
Options: Option space
Expected artifact: Option space
Build status quo, discrete mechanisms, and useful hybrids from independent design dimensions.
Entry:
...
- Do options differ in mechanism and remain feasible?
Consequences: Option cards
Expected artifact: Option cards
Describe expected effects, side effects, reversibility, and dependencies per option.
Entry:
...
- Are effects causally tied to the mechanism and marked as hypotheses?
Gaps: Testable frame
Expected artifact: Testable frame
Check duplicates, infeasible options, and information gaps; set next analysis step.
Entry:
...
- Does a real choice with clear evidence questions remain?
Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/option-framing/run-sheet
Alternatives and neighbors
Fitting alternatives with decision guidance, followed by other related methods.
Product Strategy
RICE Scoring
Instead of Option Framing, choose RICE Scoring when you already have comparable options and need a concise scoring logic for priority.
Decision Making
Impact Filter
Instead of Option Framing, choose Impact Filter when you want to pre-sort options by impact, effort, and strategic relevance.
Decision Making
Decision Framing Workshop
Sharpens the decision question, options, criteria, and evidence needs down to the right decision format.
Decision Making
Decision Tree
Draws decisions as branching paths so options, conditions, and consequences become clearer in comparison.
Decision Making
Argument Mapping
Clarifies options, criteria, and risks by framing the central question, recording the main claim, and marking weak spots.
Decision Making
Constraint Analysis
Makes hard and soft boundaries visible and turns them into decision rules and option impact notes.
Constraints and origin
MediumWorkshop + async45-120 min
Profile
- Method form
- Decision method
- Participants
- 3-8
- Time
- 45-120 min
- Maturity
- Established
- Origin
- Praxisgemeinschaft
Next up: Trade-off Analysis