Facilitation Facilitation method
Works on one question through six clearly separated thinking modes.
Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats organizes parallel thinking: white considers information, red feelings and intuition, yellow value, black caution, green new possibilities, and blue the thinking process. In groups everyone wears the same hat at a time; hats are changing modes, not personality roles.
What becomes visible when we examine the same question in turn through information, feeling, value, caution, creativity and process control?
Example and worksheet use the same method-specific structure.
Blue
The blue hat defines question, decision, sequence, timeboxes and capture.
White + red
White clarifies facts and gaps; red exposes feelings and intuition without pressure to justify.
Yellow + black
Yellow seeks reasoned value; black examines risks, weaknesses and failure conditions.
Green
The green hat expands the solution space and responds to identified risks with new options.
Blue
The blue hat integrates contributions, decides the next step and records open gaps.
Blue facilitation can call hats again when new information, risks or options emerge; sequence follows the question.
Useful for complex discussions, options and decisions where different kinds of thinking would otherwise argue against each other. Perspective switching alone does not replace missing expertise or resolve real interest conflicts.
The six thinking tracks separate views of information, feeling, value, caution, alternatives, and process.
Summary with decision, information need or test, owner and review.
Fictional example
Fictional parallel-thinking round on whether to remove mandatory profile setup before the first course. Everyone uses the same hat at a time.
| Hat | Fictional contribution | Implication or open point |
|---|---|---|
| WhiteWhat information is known, missing or must be obtained? | 42% leave onboarding; reasons are known only from nine tickets. | Open: segment drop-offs by cause and device. |
| RedWhat feelings, hunches or immediate reactions exist, without needing justification? | “The entry feels controlling”; “I fear more support load.” | Preserve reactions as test prompts, not facts. |
| YellowWhat value, benefit or reasoned upside could the option create? | Direct course entry could reveal value sooner. | Observe time to first value in the test. |
| BlackWhat risks, weaknesses or conditions could make the option fail? | Without a profile, recommendations are weaker; privacy needs review. | Measure recommendation quality and support contacts as guardrails. |
| GreenWhat alternatives, variations or new possibilities emerge? | Guest access, progressive profile, learning-goal check after lesson one. | Compare guest access and progressive profile as two test variants. |
| BlueHow will we manage focus, sequence, summary and next action? | Sequence White, Red, Yellow, Black, Green, Blue; guest-access test, owner Pia, review Oct 18. | Pia runs the test; review Oct 18 with drop-off rate and guardrails. |
Hats describe thinking modes, not fixed personal roles. In groups everyone uses the same hat at the same time.
Clarify the concrete question, desired result and decision authority. Prepare one shared hat sequence with timeboxes.
When a topic gets stuck too quickly in the same thinking mode, Six Thinking Hats deliberately separates the perspectives. This means facts, risks, creativity, and emotional signals get worked through one after another instead of mixed together.
The group deliberately switches between clearly marked viewpoints, so contributions don't stay stuck in a single line of argument. This creates a broader decision basis in which criticism, idea, and evaluation become cleanly audible separately.
Six Thinking Hats helps because it splits thinking into different modes one after another, reducing the mixing of facts, feelings, criticism, and possibilities. Its real value shows when the group takes every hat seriously instead of favoring only the familiar one. Stability comes from clear transitions, fitting questions per perspective, and a later synthesis, so the variety of viewpoints leads to better decisions.
Briefly explain the purpose of each perspective at the start and choose a question that genuinely benefits from different thinking modes. It can noticeably tip over when switching between the hats stays merely formal or individual contributions keep slipping into the same mode. Close with a synthesis that connects insights from several hats and prepares the next decision.
The method guide walks execution through 5 phases, timing, 5 pitfalls, and clear stop criteria.
Open method guideYour perspective
Your feedback helps shape the next improvements to methodatlas.
Prepare the whole flow or one selected phase with real inputs.
To be confirmed
To be confirmed
Complete hat sequence Time: 45–90 minutes
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
| Hat | Group contributions | Implications and open points |
|---|---|---|
| White | ||
| Red | ||
| Yellow | ||
| Black | ||
| Green | ||
| Blue |
Capture contributions separately by mode; make implications binding only in the blue close.
Edward de Bono Ltd · Six Thinking Hats
Expected artifact: Thinking agenda
Question · result · hat sequence · timeboxes
Entry:
...
Expected artifact: Information and reaction picture
Known · missing · source · feeling · intuition
Entry:
...
Expected artifact: Benefit-risk picture
Value · success condition · risk · protection need
Entry:
...
Expected artifact: Option space
Alternatives · variations · workarounds · open tests
Entry:
...
Expected artifact: Thinking record and next step
Summary · decision · test · owner · review
Entry:
...
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/six-thinking-hats/run-sheet
Fitting alternatives with decision guidance, followed by other related methods.
Instead of Six Thinking Hats, when you want to compare options transparently using explicit criteria, weighting, and reasoning.
Collects ideas silently, clarifies understanding, and lets the group prioritize, so quiet voices don't get lost.
Sorts problems, reframes the top issue, and derives experiments that quickly turn frustration into movement.
Condenses individual ideas into clusters, themes, and priorities so consensus grows out of individual contributions.
Draws decisions as branching paths so options, conditions, and consequences become clearer in comparison.
Moves ideas from silent reflection through pair exchange into the group and condenses patterns.
