English edition: the full translation has not yet received an independent line-by-line review. Check the linked sources and method-specific limits before use. Japanese PDFs and videos remain labelled.

Learning course 2

Move from idea generation to convergence

Prepare ideas for comparison and selection without rushing to reduce them to one.

Judgement to practise in this course: Keep the reasons for selection separate from issues left pending.

No registration or saved progress. Inputs are neither sent nor saved.

Case 1

Sticky notes keep growing until they cannot be read

IAF competency reference B
Plan Appropriate Group Processes

1. Read the situation

Ideas from 20 people cover the wall. Some use the same words with different intentions; others differ only in how they are phrased.

There are 86 sticky notes on the wall
No one other than the authors has explained their meaning
Selection criteria have not yet been agreed

2. Predict what comes next

If you vote immediately, how will prominent wording and duplicate ideas affect the result?

Your prediction (not saved, even on this device)

Input is not sent and is lost when you leave the page. Do not enter personal information or the names of real people.

3. Choose an intervention

Choose the first intervention you would make in this situationA Provisionally group ideas with similar meanings and briefly record their differencesB Give everyone one vote and immediately select the leading ideasC Let the facilitator delete duplicates alone

4. Check the result and reasons

Without JavaScript, all three choice results are shown.

Result of choice A (Recommended)

What happens: overlaps and differences become visible and can be compared.

Reason: Treating categories as hypotheses rather than conclusions allows you to organise ideas while checking their authors' intentions.

Result of choice B

Failure example: votes split across duplicate ideas, while striking wording gains an advantage over substantive importance.

Reason: Voting before preparing comparable units amplifies bias from the number and appearance of ideas.

Result of choice C

Failure example: differences in the intentions of apparently similar ideas disappear, and participants cannot check why they were deleted.

Reason: Organisation and decisions rely only on the facilitator's interpretation, without checking with the people who proposed the ideas.

Typical failure

Voting without organising, or organising alone as facilitator, loses the meaning of ideas and the decision process.

Recommendation for this case

Work with participants to group ideas with similar meanings provisionally, and write short headings for each group's common points and differences.

Reason: Treating grouping as an intermediate output for comparison allows relationships to be examined before reducing the ideas.

Read the KJ Method

Practice pack: 15 minutes

A 15-minute practice grouping 12 cards

Two roles: Person grouping the cards / Person asking about meaning
Rehearsal: Organise 12 examples with similar meanings by placing them provisionally, checking, and adding headings, in that order.
Observe: Have the authors' words been rephrased without permission?
Have uncertain cards been forced into groups?
Can the differences between groups be explained?
Debrief: Which combination was hardest to decide?
What words communicate that the grouping is provisional?
What to take away: Record group headings, cards left at the boundaries, and unanswered questions on one sheet.

Try this briefly with two colleagues, not the actual session's participants. The organiser separately judges safety and suitability for the real session.

Case 2

Only ideas with forceful advocates may survive

IAF competency reference D
Guide Group to Appropriate and Useful Outcomes

1. Read the situation

There are 8 candidates. Conversation concentrates on the ideas repeatedly promoted by two people, while other participants have not explained their reasons.

Decision criteria have not been set, even verbally
The number of contributions is uneven
Reasons for each candidate are not set out in the same format

2. Predict what comes next

If open discussion continues, how will the reasons for the final decision be recorded?

Your prediction (not saved, even on this device)

Input is not sent and is lost when you leave the page. Do not enter personal information or the names of real people.

3. Choose an intervention

Choose the first intervention you would make in this situationA Ask advocates to explain their ideas in more detailB Write the decision criteria first and compare every candidate against each criterionC Rank candidates solely through an anonymous popularity vote

4. Check the result and reasons

Without JavaScript, all three choice results are shown.

Result of choice A

Failure example: speaking time is treated as strength of conviction, and reasons for other ideas are not compared.

Reason: This carries uneven speaking opportunities into the decision without aligning how candidates will be assessed.

Result of choice B (Recommended)

What happens: preferences and reasons can be separated, and all candidates can be compared on the same basis.

Reason: Assessing after sharing criteria makes reasons other than forceful speaking visible.

Result of choice C

Failure example: the number of preferences is counted, but reasons about feasibility and impact are not retained.

Reason: Anonymity may reduce pressure to speak, but it does not replace defining what counts as good.

Typical failure

Speaking time or vote counts are treated directly as decision quality, without retaining criteria that can be explained later.

Recommendation for this case

Agree with participants on no more than three decision criteria and compare candidates against each criterion in the same format.

Reason: Separating preferences from reasons makes it possible to compare the value and burden of candidates, including minority views.

Read Priority Sliders

Practice pack: 15 minutes

A 15-minute comparison practice with criteria first

Two roles: Facilitator / Participant strongly advocating an idea
Rehearsal: Pause an open discussion of three candidates, draw out three decision criteria from the purpose, and compare again.
Observe: Are the criteria linked to the purpose?
Were all candidates considered in the same order?
Were the reasons behind minority views recorded?
Debrief: Could you distinguish preferences from reasons?
How did you handle objections to the criteria themselves?
What to take away: Create a comparison table with the three criteria, reasons for each candidate, and objections left pending.

Try this briefly with two colleagues, not the actual session's participants. The organiser separately judges safety and suitability for the real session.

Case 3

An issue cannot be decided now

IAF competency reference D
Guide Group to Appropriate and Useful Outcomes

1. Read the situation

Some proposals need a legal check, and deciding today would be costly to reverse. Merely setting the next meeting date will not supply the missing information.

It is unclear who holds the missing information
The only recorded reason for deferral is ‘needs checking’
There are no conditions for deciding when the issue resumes

2. Predict what comes next

If the record only says ‘defer until next time’, what will need checking again at the start of the next meeting?

Your prediction (not saved, even on this device)

Input is not sent and is lost when you leave the page. Do not enter personal information or the names of real people.

3. Choose an intervention

Choose the first intervention you would make in this situationA Despite uncertainty, decide today by majority voteB Set only the next date and write ‘deferred’ in the minutesC Record the reason for deferral, awaited information, responsible person, and resumption conditions together

4. Check the result and reasons

Without JavaScript, all three choice results are shown.

Result of choice A

Failure example: unchecked constraints emerge later, forcing the decision to be revisited and damaging stakeholders' trust.

Reason: This separates missing information from a decision on an issue that is costly to reverse.

Result of choice B

Failure example: the meeting restarts by checking the same missing information, and the deferral continues.

Reason: A time to resume is set, but not who must obtain what before a decision can be made.

Result of choice C (Recommended)

What happens: deferral becomes a next research action, with shared conditions for resuming the decision.

Reason: Making uncertainty and responsibility explicit turns postponement into a reversible decision process.

Typical failure

Deferral is managed only by date, without retaining the information needed, responsibility for obtaining it, or conditions for resuming.

Recommendation for this case

Bring the reason for deferral, awaited information, person responsible for obtaining it, deadline, and resumption conditions into one record.

Reason: When resumption conditions are met, deferral becomes work towards the next decision rather than neglect.

Read Decision Debt Ledger

Practice pack: 15 minutes

A 15-minute practice making a deferral resumable

Two roles: Decision owner / Recorder
Rehearsal: Rewrite ‘deferred for a legal check’ as a record containing the five items needed to resume the decision.
Observe: Was the missing information made specific?
Are there a person responsible for obtaining it and a deadline?
Were the resumption conditions made verifiable?
Debrief: How does this differ from a date-only deferral?
Who needs notification before resumption?
What to take away: Complete five fields: reason for deferral, awaited information, responsible person, deadline, and resumption conditions.

Try this briefly with two colleagues, not the actual session's participants. The organiser separately judges safety and suitability for the real session.

Language and implementation limits

English learning and preparation screens. Source-specific notices and resource-language limits apply.
Existing Excel, PDF, downloadable HTML, licence notice, and guide screenshots remain Japanese resources. Their new translation is separate later work, not an added condition for the first English-screen release.
Learning inputs are ephemeral. No network request, account, progress storage, analytics, form submission, purchase, reservation, or payment is added here.
Existing illustrations are AI-generated images, not records of actual events.