# NUF Test

Participants rate brainstormed ideas from 1 to 10 across three criteria: New, Useful, and Feasible. The resulting matrix reveals strong concepts and highlights specific weak points to strengthen.

**Time:** 20 minutes. Source suggests 15 to 30 minutes; 20 minutes fits an evaluation of 4 to 6 candidate ideas.
**People:** 4 to 24. Small working groups of 3 to 6 people or full room plenary for up to 8 people

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Evaluate and compare brainstormed concepts using quantitative criteria to identify implementation risks and improvement areas.
**Use it when:** Use after an idea generation session when a team has 3 to 8 candidate solutions and needs to prioritize or refine them before committing resources.
**Skip it when:** Skip during initial divergent brainstorming, or when evaluating complex architectural decisions that require deep technical analysis rather than an initial gut check.

## Materials and tools

- Whiteboard or flip chart paper
- Dry-erase markers or standard markers
- Sticky notes containing candidate ideas (one idea per note)
- Pens and scratch paper for individual scoring

## Before participants arrive

1. Draw a four-column grid on the whiteboard or wall with headers: Idea, New (1-10), Useful (1-10), Feasible (1-10), and Total.
2. Place 4 to 6 pre-selected ideas in the first column.

## Say this to open

We have generated several options. Now we will run the NUF Test to check each idea against reality. NUF stands for New, Useful, and Feasible. We will score each dimension on a 1 to 10 scale. A high New score means it is genuinely different from past attempts. A high Useful score means it solves the core problem without creating worse side effects. A high Feasible score means it requires realistic effort and resources. We use these scores to improve our ideas, not discard them.

## How to run it

### 1. Introduce criteria and review ideas (3 minutes)

Point to the grid. Explain the three criteria: New (different, novel), Useful (solves the problem cleanly), and Feasible (implementable within realistic budget and effort). Read through each listed idea aloud to ensure common understanding.

### 2. Score independently (5 minutes)

Ask participants to take scratch paper and privately write down their scores from 1 to 10 for each idea across N, U, and F. Remind them to treat this as a fast gut check rather than a detailed mathematical model.

### 3. Collate scores and total (5 minutes)

Go down the list of ideas one by one. For each idea, ask participants to call out or show their numbers for N, U, and F. Record the average score (or consensus number) in the matrix columns. Sum the rows to produce a total score out of 30.

### 4. Analyze and strengthen (7 minutes)

Examine the lowest individual scores on high-potential ideas. Invite the group to discuss how to strengthen those weak points. For example, ask how an idea with high usefulness but low feasibility can be reshaped to use fewer resources.


## Debrief questions

- Which idea had the largest gap between its useful score and its feasible score, and what accounts for that?
- How did scoring novelty separately help us avoid picking safe, conventional options?
- What is one change we can make to our top-rated idea right now to raise its lowest score?

**Finished output:** A completed NUF matrix ranking candidate ideas with itemized scores and agreed action points to improve feasible implementation.

## Remote

Use a shared online spreadsheet or digital whiteboard with the NUF table pre-drawn. Participants post private scores in chat or dedicated columns, which are then averaged in real time.

## Hybrid

Assign an in-room scribe to input live room scores into a shared digital whiteboard alongside remote participants entering their own scores directly. Remote participants speak their reasoning during the final discussion step.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may submit their numerical ratings silently on scratch paper or via digital form instead of calling them aloud.
- Anyone may decline to score a specific idea if they feel they lack sufficient context, leaving their slot blank to avoid distorting the group average.

## If the session gets stuck

**Participants spend too long debating what constitutes a 6 versus a 7.**

Remind the room that this is a rapid gut check. Use quick median consensus or take an average rather than demanding total agreement.

**An idea scores very high on New but extremely low on Useful and Feasible.**

Acknowledge its creativity, then ask the group what core insight from it could be grafted onto a more feasible concept.


## Terms used here

- NUF: An acronym for New, Useful, Feasible, the three evaluation criteria used in the matrix.
- Feasible: Capable of being done or carried out within existing constraints, skills, and budget.

## Participant material: NUF Scoring Reference Card

SCORING CRITERIA (Rate each 1 to 10):

NEW:
Has this approach been tried before? Does it offer a fresh direction? Higher scores mean more original and distinct from past efforts.

USEFUL:
Does it solve the core problem directly? Does it avoid creating new complications? Higher scores mean higher problem-solving impact.

FEASIBLE:
Can we actually build or execute it with realistic effort, budget, and time? Higher scores mean easier to implement.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Gamestorming and Workshopr; Gamestorming notes the NUF Test is an adaptation of an evaluation method used in patent assessments.

Retained the core Gamestorming NUF matrix and criteria definitions. Structured the process into explicit four-step timing, added independent scoring to reduce groupthink, and provided clear hybrid instructions.

[Gamestorming](https://gamestorming.com/nuf-test/)

[Gamestorming](https://gamestorming.com/nuf-test)

[Workshopr](https://workshopr.io/library/exercises/detail/?code=nuftest)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/nuf-test/