Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: c931ef3c95133fe2f70db2af6b1e2165f87094c453238f7acb084866993a6757

# Improved Solutions

Participants draft a targeted workplace problem, then pass papers around a circle across sequential rounds. Each person takes on a distinct role to generate an initial solution, write a harsh critique, provide a booster testimonial, draft an enhanced solution, and blindly evaluate both versions.

**Time:** 45 minutes. Thiagi source suggests 30 to 120 minutes based on round length; UWT suggests 45 minutes for standard training sessions.
**People:** 6 to 24. Individual paper passing in circles of 6 to 12; divide groups larger than 12 into separate circles.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Compare and refine problem-solving options by separating idea generation, critical analysis, positive advocacy, and enhancement across distinct participants.
**Use it when:** Use when a team needs fresh, multi-perspective solutions to stubborn challenges without getting bogged down in immediate defensiveness.
**Skip it when:** Skip when the issue requires sensitive private disclosures, deep technical modeling, or when participants lack common context on the topic.

## Materials and tools

- Sheets of lined paper or card folders (1 packet per participant)
- Pens or pencils (1 per participant)
- Timer or stopwatch for the facilitator
- Printed problem formulation guidelines or slide display

## Before participants arrive

1. Seat participants in a circle or around tables arranged so passing paper to the left is simple.
2. Distribute blank paper packets and writing utensils to every participant.
3. Select and display a shared topical theme (e.g., cross-team communication, onboarding, or client responsiveness).

## Say this to open

Welcome. We often evaluate ideas too quickly or defend our own ideas too strongly. Today we will separate problem solving into distinct hats. Each of you will write a real or realistic problem on paper. Then, you will pass that problem around the circle. In each round, you will play a specific role: Consultant, Basher, Booster, Enhancer, and Evaluator. By the end, every author gets back two workable, tested solutions.

## How to run it

### 1. Draft problem statement (7 minutes)

State the broad theme. Ask each person to write a concise problem description using four prompts: problem owner, context, key people involved, and gap between current and desired state. Announce a five-minute writing limit. At time, ensure everyone has completed their problem slip.

### 2. Act as creativity consultant (6 minutes)

Direct everyone to pass their paper to the person on their left. Everyone now acts as a Creativity Consultant. Instruct them to read the problem and write one specific, immediate solution on a fresh sheet. Forbid delay tactics like asking for more analysis. Call time after five minutes.

### 3. Act as cynical basher (6 minutes)

Have participants pass the problem and initial solution to the left. Announce the Basher role. Participants must read both sheets, identify only risks, weaknesses, and potential negative consequences, and write a candid critique on a third sheet. Forbid offering fixes or acknowledging benefits.

### 4. Act as positive booster (6 minutes)

Direct participants to pass the three-page packet to the left. Announce the Booster role. Participants read the problem, solution, and critique, then write a testimonial highlighting strengths, merits, and positive outcomes on a fourth sheet. They must overlook flaws and avoid suggesting revisions.

### 5. Act as enhancer (7 minutes)

Have participants pass the four-page packet to the left. Announce the Enhancer role. Participants review all previous sheets and draft an improved, robust solution addressing the criticisms while building on the strengths. They write this enhanced solution on a fifth sheet.

### 6. Act as blind evaluator (6 minutes)

Direct participants to remove the critique and testimonial sheets and set them aside. They shuffle the original solution and the enhanced solution so order is disguised, then pass the problem and both solutions to the left. The Evaluator reads both and divides 100 points between them.

### 7. Return and review (7 minutes)

Participants return the full packet to the original problem owner. Owners read both proposed solutions, note the evaluator's point split, and determine which elements to keep. Invite three volunteers to share how the structured roles shifted the final outcome.


## Debrief questions

- Which role felt easiest to adopt, and which felt most difficult?
- How did separating the cynical critique from the positive testimonial change the final enhanced solution?
- How can you apply this sequence of distinct roles when tackling a problem independently at work?

**Finished output:** Every participant receives their original problem statement accompanied by an initial solution, a critique, a booster testimonial, an enhanced solution, and an objective point allocation.

## Remote

Use a shared digital whiteboard or cloud document folder. Set up individual workspace boards numbered 1 to N. In each timed round, participants move to Board (N + round) modulo total participants. For Step 6, the facilitator hides intermediate sticky notes and randomizes the placement of Solution A and Solution B before evaluation.

## Hybrid

Keep remote and in-person participants in separate passing tracks. Remote participants use collaborative online documents while in-person participants pass physical paper packets. Merge both groups together for the final reflection.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may use typed text, dictation software, or handwritten notes.
- Participants may choose a fictional case study instead of a personal workplace dilemma.
- Anyone may opt out of reading their dilemma aloud during whole-room sharing.

## If the session gets stuck

**A participant writes an overly broad or vague problem statement.**

Prompt them immediately with the four setup questions: Who owns it? What is happening? Who is involved? What concrete metric or outcome needs to change?

**An evaluator recognizes which solution was original versus enhanced based on handwriting.**

Remind evaluators to judge purely on the practical merit of the ideas rather than presentation or penmanship.


## Terms used here

- Framegame: A reusable activity structure that provides rules and procedures while allowing any training content or topic to be inserted.

## Participant material: Problem Formulation Guide

When framing your problem, answer these four questions in 3 to 4 sentences:
1. Problem Owner: Whose problem is this?
2. Context: What organizational or team setting does this happen in?
3. Key People: Who is involved or affected?
4. Gap: What is the current condition versus the desired outcome?

Example:
Owner: Russ, Director of Customer Service.
Context: Financial services customer support department.
People: Sam (team leader) and his direct reports.
Gap: Six out of ten direct reports rated Sam's communication style as unacceptable on a 360 review, whereas the desired goal is an acceptable rating from all team members.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Play for Performance (March 2002), published by Workshops by Thiagi, Inc., edited by Sivasailam Thiagarajan.

Retained the six-round mechanic (problem owner, consultant, basher, booster, enhancer, and evaluator) and role definitions from Sivasailam Thiagarajan's 'Improved Solutions'. UWT adapted the scoring slightly from Thiagi's 99-point distribution to an intuitive 100-point split, added structured time bands totaling 45 minutes, created remote and hybrid options, and provided clear debrief guidelines.

[thiagi.net](https://thiagi.net/archive/www/pfp/IE4H/march2002.html)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/pfp-march-2002/