How Might We

Choose this exercise

Purpose: Reframe a defined problem statement into generative question prompts that open multiple solution paths.

Use it when: Use when moving directly from problem definition or research insights into brainstorming.

Skip it when: Skip when the underlying problem is still vague or when the team must execute an already decided action plan.

Group arrangement: Solo drafting followed by breakout tables of 3 to 4 participants (pairs or groups of 3 to 5 at small or uneven room sizes).

Timing: Matches the 20-minute total duration documented in the Workshopr record.

Materials and tools

• 1 pad of sticky notes per person
• 1 felt-tip marker per person
• Wall space or tabletop butcher paper for each group
• 1 printed problem statement sheet per table or group display
• Shared digital whiteboard or collaboration canvas for remote or hybrid setups

Before participants arrive

1. Post the core problem statement clearly on the central room display.
2. Distribute sticky notes and markers to each table.
3. For hybrid setups, prepare the shared digital canvas and designate one in-room scribe before the clock starts.

Say this to open

We are turning our central problem into opportunities using 'How Might We' statements. The word 'How' assumes solutions exist, 'Might' gives us room to explore, and 'We' means we do it together. Your goal right now is not to solve the issue, but to write questions that spark useful ideas.

How to run it

1. Explain framing rules 4 minutes

   Speak the opening script and point to the problem statement. Explain that questions should avoid being too broad like 'How might we fix the entire company?' or too narrow like 'How might we turn the button green?' Share the neutral example: if the problem is 'Commuters wait 30 minutes in the cold for late buses,' a strong HMW is 'How might we make waiting time feel productive and warm?' Contrast that with an embedded solution like 'How might we install heated shelters?'

2. Draft individual questions 5 minutes

   Participants work quietly. Each person generates questions using the phrase 'How might we...' and writes one question per sticky note, aiming for 3 to 5 distinct angles. Anyone who prefers not to write physically may type into the shared canvas or dictate questions to a table peer to scribe.

3. Cluster and refine in small groups 7 minutes

   Direct participants into tables of 3 or 4 (or 3 to 5 depending on total room count). Each group reads through their notes and clusters similar angles on their wall space or digital board. Each team selects 1 or 2 distinct questions that create the widest range of possible solutions. Any participant may pass on reading their own note aloud during group review while still having their written card included in the cluster.

4. Harvest chosen prompts 4 minutes

   Bring the full room together. One spokesperson from each table reads their 1 or 2 chosen questions aloud and places them on the main room board. In hybrid sessions, the designated in-room scribe copies the remote team's final cards from the digital board to the physical wall during these presentations.

Debrief questions

• Which questions made the problem feel broader, and which made it feel focused?
• Did any drafted questions secretly contain a single solution, and how did you reword them?
• Which chosen prompt gives us the most promising room to brainstorm?

Finished output: A shared display of 4 to 8 vetted 'How Might We' question cards ready to seed brainstorming.

Remote

Display the core problem on a shared digital board. Participants work solo on digital sticky notes, then split into video breakouts of 3 to 4 people to cluster their notes in assigned canvas zones. Each breakout group drags their top 2 selected notes to a shared harvest column.

Hybrid

In-person participants work in local table groups using physical sticky notes, while remote attendees work together in a dedicated video breakout using the shared digital canvas. The designated in-room scribe posts the remote team's top choices to the physical wall during the harvest step so all participants see the unified prompt pool.

Access and participation choices

• Provide the central problem statement in high-contrast text and read it aloud.
• Participants may write sticky notes, type into a digital canvas, or dictate ideas to a table partner.
• Anyone may pass on speaking during group reviews while still contributing their written cards.

If the session gets stuck

Participants write direct solutions rather than generative questions, such as 'How might we build an app to fix this?'

Ask them what outcome that app achieves for the user, then help them rewrite the question around that underlying need.

Questions are framed so broadly that they lose touch with the problem statement.

Ask the group to name the specific friction point from the original problem they want their question to address.

Terms used here

• HMW: Abbreviation for 'How Might We', a standard question stem used to reframe challenges into open opportunities.