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: c0979a6fc5c79a58688a85b3c93025a12a10f563215e6e0d36e5f587fbd056f0

# The 4 Elements

Groups filter and refine a pool of generated ideas through four distinct lenses: passion check, combination, debate, and numerical rating against constraints.

**Time:** 15 minutes. Source specifies 5 to 15 minutes for 1 to 8 people. Standardized to 15 minutes for small groups to complete all four evaluation passes.
**People:** 3 to 16. Small working groups of 3 to 5 people.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Narrow down brainstormed ideas into viable selections using both emotional commitment and objective criteria.
**Use it when:** Directly after an open ideation session when a team has too many raw concepts and needs to pick realistic directions.
**Skip it when:** Skip during open generative brainstorming or when an evaluation framework has already been established by external requirements.

## Materials and tools

- Existing list or sticky notes of candidate ideas
- 1 blank paper pad per group
- 1 pen per participant
- 1 timer for the facilitator

## Before participants arrive

1. Ensure each team has a pre-existing list of at least 6 to 10 brainstormed ideas visible on a board or table.
2. Distribute paper and pens to each workspace.

## Say this to open

We have an open list of ideas, and now we need to close in on the strongest contenders. We will evaluate our candidates through four elements: passion, combos, debate, and a 1 to 10 rating based on time, budget, and scope. Let us start by testing our personal energy for these concepts.

## How to run it

### 1. Check Passion (3 minutes)

Review the ideas together. Each person marks or flags the concepts they personally care about building. If an idea generates zero personal excitement across the team, move it to an archive pile.

### 2. Build Combos (4 minutes)

Look across the remaining concepts for similarities or complementary strengths. Merge overlapping ideas into unified stronger concepts instead of discarding them. Rewrite combined concepts as single phrases.

### 3. Debate Contenders (4 minutes)

Pick two or three front-running ideas. Assign team members to advocate for different options. Debate the merits of each option for two minutes. Note whether arguments rely on personal preference or client needs.

### 4. Rate on Logic (4 minutes)

Rate each remaining idea from 1 to 10 on feasibility, evaluating specifically against available time, money, and project scope. Tally scores to select the top concept.


## Debrief questions

- Did your top idea win because of personal excitement, realistic constraints, or both?
- Where did personal preference clash with client requirements during the debate?
- Which idea became noticeably stronger after combining it with another?

**Finished output:** One or two consolidated, prioritized ideas scored against time, budget, and scope.

## Remote

Display the raw idea cards on a shared digital whiteboard. In breakout rooms of 3 to 5 people, participants tag cards with heart stickers for passion, drag cards together for combos, use room audio for the debate, and type 1 to 10 scores into a sticky note matrix.

## Hybrid

Keep in-person and remote participants in synchronized small breakout pods. In-person tables use digital whiteboard boards on a central laptop so remote members see combinations and vote simultaneously.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may pass during the debate round and instead act as neutral timekeepers or note-takers.
- Written scoring and quiet voting options are provided for participants who prefer not to argue verbally.

## If the session gets stuck

**Team members deadlock during the debate step because of conflicting personal tastes.**

Intervene and redirect the discussion to external project constraints: ask which option best fits the deadline and client budget.

**Groups attempt to combine every single idea, creating bloated concepts that lack focus.**

Instruct teams that a combination is only valid if the core premise becomes simpler and clearer, not longer.


## Terms used here

- Scope: The specific boundaries, features, and deliverables required for the project.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed on Project of How, where the post 'The 4 Elements' is credited to Christian Stjernqvist (2012).

The original source describes four qualitative methods (Passion, Combos, Debate team, 1-10 rating) with feasibility anchors (Time, Money, Scope) as an idea closing process. UWT structured these four methods into a sequential 15-minute facilitation pipeline with precise subgroup limits and neutral instructions.

[Project of How](https://projectofhow.com/method/the-4-elements/)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/the-4-elements-project-of-how/