methodatlas
Method guideDecision Making

Option Framing

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

ComplexityMedium
Time45-120 min
Participants3-8
FormatWorkshop + async
MaturityEstablished
Plan Option Framing
01

Prerequisite

What needs to be finished first

Complete firstClear boundary

Set decision, owner, deadline, scope, and non-negotiable boundaries; defer evaluation until the option set is complete.

Without a boundary, cases, periods, or variables become mixed.
Complete firstEvidence access

Decision statement, objectives and boundaries, status quo, option cards, consequence hypotheses, and assumption log

Missing sources remain visible as uncertainty.
02

Preparation

What needs to be ready before start

Materials

Decision statement, objectives and boundaries, status quo, option cards, consequence hypotheses, and assumption log

People / roles

Decision owner · affected stakeholders · domain perspectives · facilitator

Pre-read

Set decision, owner, deadline, scope, and non-negotiable boundaries; defer evaluation until the option set is complete.

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.

03

Core question

The one question this method answers

Which genuinely distinct and feasible courses of action cover the decision space without mixing solutions, objectives, and assumptions?

04

Flow

Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall

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.

Option Framing · working structure

Fictional example

Fictional values show the actual method fields.

Option Framing · working structure
OptionMechanismRequired capabilityExpected consequencesReversibilityTipping question
A · Status quoAdd evidence and rationale.Unmanaged arrivalNo new capabilityp80 18–24 min; emergencies immediateFullyIs current variation seasonal?
B · Fixed slotsAdd evidence and rationale.30-minute windows smooth arrivalsBooking and slot disciplinep80 12–14 min; predictable loadReversible pilotDo workshops keep slots?
C · Dynamic slotsAdd evidence and rationale.Forecast adjusts capacity continuouslyForecast and live inventoryp80 9–13 min; high flexibilityPartly reversibleDoes forecast reach needed quality?
D · Slots plus bufferAdd evidence and rationale.Fixed slots reserve 10% for emergenciesRelease rule 60 min beforePredictability plus emergency accessReversible pilotHow often is buffer unused?

  1. 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. 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. 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. 4. Reversibility

    A · Status quo
    Fully
    B · Fixed slots
    Reversible pilot
    C · Dynamic slots
    Partly reversible
    D · Slots plus buffer
    Reversible pilot

  5. 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.

Reference · original teaching example

  1. 1

    Frame

    Choice frame

    Goal

    Choice frame: Phrase the decision as a choice with owner, timing, scope, and boundaries.

    Inputs for this step

    • 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

    Actions

    • Phrase the decision as a choice with owner, timing, scope, and boundaries.

    Output

    Choice frame

    Phrase the decision as a choice with owner, timing, scope, and boundaries.

    Quality check

    Can the owner choose among named actions by a date?

    Pitfall

    A problem statement replaces the pending choice. Close the sentence as who decides what actions by when.

    Timing: 15–20 minutes

  2. 2

    Objectives

    Objective view

    Goal

    Objective view: Capture fundamental objectives and red lines without disguising solution features as objectives.

    Inputs for this step

    • Choice frame

    Actions

    • Capture fundamental objectives and red lines without disguising solution features as objectives.

    Output

    Objective view

    Capture fundamental objectives and red lines without disguising solution features as objectives.

    Quality check

    Does each objective state a desired consequence for affected people?

    Pitfall

    Automation is listed as an objective. Ask for the desired value behind each proposed objective.

    Timing: 15–20 minutes

  3. 3

    Options

    Option space

    Goal

    Option space: Build status quo, discrete mechanisms, and useful hybrids from independent design dimensions.

    Inputs for this step

    • Objective view

    Actions

    • Build status quo, discrete mechanisms, and useful hybrids from independent design dimensions.

    Output

    Option space

    Build status quo, discrete mechanisms, and useful hybrids from independent design dimensions.

    Quality check

    Do options differ in mechanism and remain feasible?

    Pitfall

    The same solution appears under different wording. State mechanism, required capability, and distinction for every option.

    Timing: 20–30 minutes

  4. 4

    Consequences

    Option cards

    Goal

    Option cards: Describe expected effects, side effects, reversibility, and dependencies per option.

    Inputs for this step

    • Option space

    Actions

    • Describe expected effects, side effects, reversibility, and dependencies per option.

    Output

    Option cards

    Describe expected effects, side effects, reversibility, and dependencies per option.

    Quality check

    Are effects causally tied to the mechanism and marked as hypotheses?

    Pitfall

    Options contain names and benefits only. Add mechanism → consequence → evidence question for each option.

    Timing: 15–25 minutes

  5. 5

    Gaps

    Testable frame

    Goal

    Testable frame: Check duplicates, infeasible options, and information gaps; set next analysis step.

    Inputs for this step

    • Option cards

    Actions

    • Check duplicates, infeasible options, and information gaps; set next analysis step.

    Output

    Testable frame

    Check duplicates, infeasible options, and information gaps; set next analysis step.

    Quality check

    Does a real choice with clear evidence questions remain?

    Pitfall

    A favourite is selected before consequences are evidenced. Defer choice, prioritise tipping questions, and name evidence owners.

    Timing: 10–20 minutes

05

Artifact

What comes out at the end

Sketch: what the artifact looks like

Option Framing · Either/Or/HybridTranslate raw ideas into comparable option frames with scope, assumptions, effort, risks, reversibility, and consequences
Option FramingThe visual shows how raw options are consolidated and turned through one frame template into a comparable decision shortlist.Turn raw ideas into fair, decision-ready optionsOption Framing puts every alternative into the same structure so gaps, assumptions, and consequences become visible before evaluation.do not evaluate before options are worked outread every option through the same frameRaw optionsideas, proposals, solutiondirectionsConsolidatebundle duplicates, cut realalternativesOption Frame TemplateScopeWhat is included?ValueWhich goal contribution does it make?AssumptionsWhat must be true?RisksWhat could fail?ConsequencesWhat do we accept?Comparable shortlistOption A, B, hybrid can be judgedfairlyDecision Inputready for matrix, trade-off, or ADR
Form

Option frame with status quo, discrete and hybrid options, mechanism, expected consequences, reversibility, and open evidence questions.

Versioning / ownership

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

Tool alternatives
  • Decision frame
  • Option morphology
  • Consequence and assumption log

option-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

OptionMechanismRequired capabilityExpected consequencesReversibilityTipping 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

06

Example output

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

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

option-framing-beispiel.md

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional teaching example: Option Framing · working structure

OptionMechanismRequired capabilityExpected consequencesReversibilityTipping question
A · Status quoUnmanaged arrivalNo new capabilityp80 18–24 min; emergencies immediateFullyIs current variation seasonal?
B · Fixed slots30-minute windows smooth arrivalsBooking and slot disciplinep80 12–14 min; predictable loadReversible pilotDo workshops keep slots?
C · Dynamic slotsForecast adjusts capacity continuouslyForecast and live inventoryp80 9–13 min; high flexibilityPartly reversibleDoes forecast reach needed quality?
D · Slots plus bufferFixed slots reserve 10% for emergenciesRelease rule 60 min beforePredictability plus emergency accessReversible pilotHow often is buffer unused?
07

Pitfalls

Recognize symptoms and steer against them

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

  1. Choice frameA problem statement replaces the pending choice.View in phase
  2. Objective viewAutomation is listed as an objective.View in phase
  3. Option spaceThe same solution appears under different wording.View in phase
  4. Option cardsOptions contain names and benefits only.View in phase
  5. Testable frameA favourite is selected before consequences are evidenced.View in phase
08

Stop criteria

When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach

Stop Frame: Can the owner choose among named actions by a date?
Stop Objectives: Does each objective state a desired consequence for affected people?
Stop Options: Do options differ in mechanism and remain feasible?
Stop Consequences: Are effects causally tied to the mechanism and marked as hypotheses?
Stop Gaps: Does a real choice with clear evidence questions remain?

Method after Praxisgemeinschaft. The method emerged as a widespread practice and is not clearly attributed to a single originator or organization. Curated with 1 sources.

Sources: Strategic Decisions Group: Decision Quality

Flow, timeboxes, and pitfalls are editorially curated practice recommendations based on the listed sources.

Where to go next?

Paper illustration for Trade-off Analysis.
Decision Making
Trade-off Analysis

Systematically compares the framed options against criteria and consequences.

Paper illustration of a decision table with criteria rows, weighted ratings, and a narrowly leading alternative.
Decision Making
Decision Matrix

Weighs the vetted options against criteria for a traceable selection.

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 profileMore methods