Form
Markdown or wiki entry with question, one section per hat with core contributions (bullet points), a synthesis section with recommendation or decision referencing hat contributions, plus owner and follow-up.
RunsheetFacilitation
Six Thinking Hats
ComplexityMedium
Time45-90 min
Participants4-12
FormatWorkshop
MaturityCanonical
01
Preparation
What needs to be ready before start
Materials
Whiteboard or Miro with six areas (white, red, black, yellow, green, blue); timer; visual hat symbols or colored cards; stickies per hat in hat color; question visible as header.
People / roles
One facilitator (metaphorically wearing the blue hat throughout); four to twelve participants; one scribe for consolidation per hat; for decision questions, a decider outside the group or clearly identifiable in the group.
Pre-read
Concrete bounded question as one sentence (decision, idea to test, concept to review); context documents in 1-2 pages; known constraints; expectation for output (recommendation, decision, idea set).
Time needed
45-90 min
Setup
Six areas on the wall. Choose sequence (classic: blue, white, yellow, black, green, red, blue; for creative exploration: blue, green, yellow, red, white, black, blue). Timer per hat at 5-10 min.
02
Core question
The one question this method answers
Which insights per thinking mode contribute to a more balanced assessment or decision on the guiding question?
03
Flow
Marker: Phase
| Step | Duration | Action | Hint |
|---|---|---|---|
1Phase 1: Open with blue (process) | 5 min | Facilitator clarifies question, hat sequence, timeboxes and output goal. Rule: everyone wears the same hat at the same time, no mixing. | The biggest temptation is mixing, especially black thoughts in the green phase. This discipline creates the value. |
2Phase 2: White (facts) | 8-10 min | Which facts, data, evidence are known? Which gaps are obvious? Stickies in the white area. No evaluation. | If contributions contain opinions ("we know that"), rephrase or move them. White is only verifiable information. |
3Phase 3: Yellow (optimism) | 8-10 min | Which benefits, opportunities, plausible value does the question/idea have? Arguments with mechanism ("because X"), not pure affirmation. | Yellow is not naive. Every pro point must name the assumption that supports it. Otherwise it is wishful thinking, not optimism. |
4Phase 4: Black (critique) | 8-10 min | Which risks, weaknesses, plausible failure modes? Critique as mechanism, not rejection. Stickies in the black area. | Black is the longest phase in many groups because it is practiced. Do not let it run longer than 10 min, otherwise the mood tips. |
5Phase 5: Green (creativity) | 8-12 min | Which new ideas, alternatives, creative solutions emerge from previous insights? Use black and yellow contributions as material. | If phase 5 stays empty, black was too long or too hard. Green needs energy, so optionally add a micro-break before it. |
6Phase 6: Red (intuition) | 5 min | Each person gets 30 s: emotional state on the question in one sentence or gut feeling. No justification allowed. | Red is short and not discussable. Anyone saying "actually" is not red. This phase reveals taboo feelings that would later sabotage decisions. |
7Phase 7: Blue (synthesis) | 10-15 min | Facilitator walks through the wall and summarizes central contributions. Decider or group formulates recommendation or decision with reference to hat contributions. | If synthesis ignores all six hats and cites only one, the workshop was theater. Recommendation must process tensions from at least three hats. |
04
Artifact
What comes out at the end
Versioning / ownership
One entry per question with date. Append follow-up sessions on same question as version 2, cite recommendation from first session and add status (implemented, changed, rejected).
Tool alternatives
- Miro or FigJam with Six Hats template
- Notion or Confluence page with six sections
- Handwritten posters with photo export
- Mural with color-coded columns
six-thinking-hats-working-template.md
Compact working template for Six Thinking Hats with context, input, output artifacts, and next step.
Six Thinking Hats Working Template
Goal
Structures discussion across six thinking modes: facts, feelings, criticism, optimism, creativity, and process.
Context
When and for what do we use this method?
Input
Which data, observations, decisions, or materials are available?
Execution
Short notes along the runsheet.
Output artifacts
- Perspective Notes:
- Decision Inputs:
- Action Items:
Assumptions and open questions
- ...
Decision / Next step
Owner, date, and success signal.
05
Example output
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
six-thinking-hats-beispiel.md
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Six Thinking Hats — Should Team B move to edge-function architecture? (2026-05-16, 75 min, 7 people)
Decider: @marcus (CTO).
White (facts): Current p95 API latency 220 ms. Edge cold start ~5 ms in pilot. Team has two engineers with edge experience. Compliance: data processing must stay in EU. Cloudflare Workers, Vercel Edge support EU region.
Yellow (optimism): Latency for global users -60% (assumption: 80% of traffic benefits). Scaling without explicit capacity planning. Vendor lock-in lower than assumed because routing layer is replaceable.
Black (critique): Database connection from edge is tail-latency risk (RTT on DB calls). Local-state patterns disappear. Debugging at edge is harder, less tooling. Two engineers are thin for a 6-month migration.
Green (creativity): Hybrid path: auth and static on edge, data reads remain regional. Edge only for 3 specific endpoints, rest unchanged. Time-boxed 8-week pilot with clear rollback.
Red (intuition): 4/7 cautiously optimistic. 2/7 uneasy about tooling maturity. 1/7 enthusiastic.
Synthesis (recommendation): 8-week pilot with the hybrid path (green), only 3 endpoints. Success criteria from white: p95 reduction >40%, error rate stable. Black addressed through rollback plan. Red unease on tooling: owner @anna checks observability gaps in week 1. Decider @marcus: pilot approved, review date 2026-07-16.
06
Pitfalls
Recognize symptoms and steer against them
Trap
Hats are mixed
Symptom
Black contributions appear in the green phase ("that will never work"), discipline breaks.
What to do
Facilitator interrupts immediately and parks contribution in the right phase. This discipline is non-negotiable, otherwise there is no method.
Trap
Unsuitable sequence
Symptom
Black before yellow kills energy, group stays in critique mode.
What to do
Choose sequence deliberately: for evaluation, yellow before black; for innovation, green early; for conflict, red early to release tension.
Trap
Red becomes discussion
Symptom
Gut feelings are followed by explanations and debate, phase expands.
What to do
Strictly 30 s per person, no justification allowed. Red is data point, not argument. Discussion only in blue.
Trap
Synthesis ignores hats
Symptom
Recommendation at end sounds like before workshop, hat contributions were theater.
What to do
Synthesis template: recommendation must explicitly reference at least three hats. If it cannot, the group did not work.
Trap
Yellow becomes wishful thinking
Symptom
Pro arguments without mechanism ("customers will love this", without why).
What to do
Force one assumption ("because X") per yellow contribution. If no assumption can be formulated, move contribution to white as "to verify".
07
Stop criteria
Done signals checkable in under a minute
Question is not bounded or contains several independent decisions.
Decider is not in the room and not reachable within 24 h, synthesis becomes non-binding.
Group has fewer than 3 people, diversity of perspectives is missing.
Group is larger than 12 people, hat discipline and voice distribution cannot be maintained.
There is acute conflict between 2 people that must be clarified before the topic; hats would treat symptoms.
Decision is time-critical (<2 h), method setup is too heavy.
Finished the runsheet?
Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.