THINKING FRAMEWORKS

Use a framework, clarify your thinking.

Start with your question. Find a suitable framework and see how to use it.

Choose by work stage

Start at a relevant stage and choose a suitable framework. The order helps you find your place; it is not a required sequence.

1. Define a problem

1-1 Identify the problem

Compare the current situation with the desired state and identify the gap.

Possible result: A problem statement and evidence of the gap

1-2 Organize the problem

Separate the issues and turn a broad concern into a question you can investigate.

Possible result: A structured question and investigation scope

1-3 Set priorities

Decide which issue needs attention first under your constraints.

Possible result: Priorities and the reasons for them

2. Understand the market and customers

2-1 Assess the environment and your business

Examine external conditions alongside your business's resources and capabilities.

Possible result: Relevant conditions, capabilities, and evidence gaps

2-2 Understand customers

Examine customer groups, needs, and experiences using available evidence.

Possible result: Customer insights and questions to check

2-3 Understand competitors

Compare competitors' offerings, activities, and capabilities.

Possible result: A comparison and possible areas of difference

3. Develop and compare ideas

3-1 Generate ideas

Explore several possible responses before judging them.

Possible result: A set of candidate ideas

3-2 Develop an idea

Turn an abstract idea into a proposal people can discuss.

Possible result: A more specific proposal and its assumptions

3-3 Compare and choose ideas

Compare candidates against explicit constraints and criteria.

Possible result: A choice, tradeoffs, and unresolved checks

4. Set a strategy and a plan

4-1 Choose a strategic direction

Consider business, market, customer, and positioning choices.

Possible result: Candidate directions and the reasons to explore them

4-2 Work out how to proceed

Examine what your direction requires and what may prevent it.

Possible result: A possible approach, dependencies, and checks

4-3 Set goals

Describe the intended result and how you will check progress.

Possible result: Goals and measures for reviewing them

5. Review and improve work

5-1 Review results

Compare what happened with what you intended and identify lessons.

Possible result: Observations, lessons, and next questions

5-2 Map how the work operates

Make activities, responsibilities, and constraints visible.

Possible result: A shared picture of the current work

5-3 Explore improvements

Consider changes to the work and what each would require.

Possible result: Improvement candidates and validation plans

6. Manage a team and work together

6-1 Align on goals

Make the team's direction and each person's contribution clear.

Possible result: Shared goals and responsibilities

6-2 Improve working relationships

Examine communication and cooperation using specific observations.

Possible result: Issues to discuss and ways to work together

6-3 Support motivation

Explore work conditions and goals without assuming what motivates each person.

Possible result: Questions, support options, and follow-up actions

7. Structure and share information

7-1 Communicate information

Organize the information so others can understand the point and its basis.

Possible result: A structured explanation or proposal

Framework overview ↗Compare frameworks ↗Try a search

Identify problems

Swipe the table sideways on mobile →

Framework summary by scenario
Framework	Purpose	What to bring	What you will have	Limits and cautions
1-1-1As-Is / To-Be	Compare the current and desired states using consistent measures, then separate the observed gap from possible causes and solutions.	An observed current state, its evidence and measurement rules, and a desired state with a rationale and time horizon. Mark provisional targets explicitly.	A bounded gap statement and a next investigation or test. A proposed action remains separate from evidence that it will close the gap.	A target is not a forecast or a commitment. Different populations or observation windows may make a comparison invalid. The gap alone does not explain why it exists.
1-1-26W2H	Answer eight planning questions to align the purpose, audience, execution, timing, place, and resource limits of an activity.	An activity brief, known arrangements, resource limits, and unanswered questions. Bring the people responsible for operations and delivery into the review.	A compact activity brief with eight explicit dimensions, remaining checks, and a next action. Missing information stays visible.	The worksheet organizes a plan; it does not confirm demand, attendance, authorization, or feasibility. A budget cap is not actual spending, and an attendance target is not a result. The eight boxes do not represent a sequence or score.
1-1-35 Whys	Investigate a specific event through successive causal questions, keeping each explanation tied to evidence.	A bounded problem, the affected cases and time period, and records that can support or challenge each proposed explanation.	A causal investigation showing supported links, unresolved hypotheses, and the next evidence to collect.	Five is not a required number of questions. Stop when evidence runs out, and branch when there are multiple causes. A plausible chain is not proof of a root cause.
1-1-4Circle of control	Sort specific issues by what your team can directly change and what depends on someone else's decision, then plan a response for each.	A concrete problem, your role and authority, a time window, relevant records and external dependencies. Leave uncertain permissions open for checking.	Two groups of issues with reasons, one action you can take directly, and a plan to clarify, respond to and review external dependencies.	Control depends on the role, authority and time window; it does not make an individual responsible for everything. An external constraint still deserves attention. You can ask, negotiate or prepare alternatives, but cannot promise another person's reply or decision. Classification proves neither a cause nor an improvement.
1-2-1Logic tree	Break a broad question into explicit branches so you can examine its parts and decide what to investigate next.	One clear question, a basis for dividing it into branches, and evidence or open questions for each branch.	A structured investigation with defined branches, visible gaps, and specific checks for the next level of detail.	The shape of a tree does not establish causation or completeness. Check for overlap, missing branches, and changes in the question being answered.
1-2-2Issue definition worksheet	Connect an observed gap to a bounded improvement task, a target, and explicit constraints before scheduling a solution.	A current measure and its definition, supporting observations, a proposed target, the delivery window, and available people. Identify the population and observation period before comparing results.	An issue card with current evidence, a target, the gap, included work, and constraints. It should support a decision about the next investigation or prototype.	This is BizThinkFrame's worksheet structure, not a standardized research or scoring instrument. Interview feedback can suggest an investigation; it does not establish what caused a metric gap. A complete issue card is not proof that a target is achievable.
1-3-1Urgency–importance matrix	Sort tasks by importance to a stated goal and urgency of their timing, then agree immediate work, scheduled work, delegation, and reductions.	A task list, relevant goals, deadlines and consequences, available time, and the people who could help. Include important preventive work that has no immediate deadline.	A four-quadrant task discussion with time reserved for important work, confirmed handoffs, and proposed reductions to review.	Classification depends on the goal and role, and can change. A task that is less important to a manager may still matter to someone else. Delegation needs capacity and agreement; the matrix does not authorize canceling obligations. Box area is not workload or time.
1-3-2Decision matrix	Compare eligible options against shared criteria and make the effects of your weights and ratings visible.	Hard constraints, at least two eligible options, weighted criteria, complete ratings, and the evidence behind them.	Calculated weighted scores alongside the original inputs, assumptions, and trade-offs.	Scores reflect the inputs; they do not prove an option is best. Screen out options that fail hard constraints and test whether small input changes alter close results.
2-2-5Customer journey map	Trace one customer's task through touchpoints, actions and experiences, keeping evidence and unobserved stages visible.	One customer and task, start and end boundaries, touchpoint and action records in time order, the person's statements, and missing stages or assumptions.	An evidence-linked journey with unknown stages, friction and handoff questions, and proposed ownership and improvement checks.	A journey need not be linear or end in a purchase. Separate observed current experience from a proposed future experience; do not invent conversion to complete the final stage. Label feelings as self-reported or assumed. One person's path is not a group rate, and improvement opportunities still need testing.
2-3-3Value chain analysis	Disaggregate a business into linked primary and support activities, then check cost boundaries and possible sources of customer value.	A business and period, activity records, value clues, compatible cost records, allocation rules and handoffs.	An activity-and-link map, a bounded cost reconciliation and hypotheses for further investigation.	A value chain is not a supplier list, organization chart or fixed workflow. Separate support and count costs once. Disclose allocation assumptions and exclusions. High cost does not establish value; deleting work does not guarantee improvement. A selected revenue-minus-cost remainder is not net profit, and undisclosed rival costs stay unknown.
3-1-2Mandala chart	Place a topic in the center of a nine-cell grid and explore eight related directions before choosing ideas to develop.	One clear topic and ideas from several relevant perspectives.	Eight possible directions, gaps to explore, and selected ideas for further development.	The cells are perspectives, not a required sequence or proof of complete coverage. Leave a cell blank when you need more thought. Mandalachart is a registered trademark of Clover Management Research Institute; this is an independent practice worksheet.
3-3-1Pros and cons list	Compare the benefits and drawbacks of possible actions against a shared goal.	Possible actions, a common goal, constraints, and evidence for the expected benefits and drawbacks.	A side-by-side comparison with an explicit reason for choosing an action or collecting more evidence.	Counting items does not show which option is best. Consider importance, likelihood, and irreversible costs; do not treat suggested mitigations as proven solutions.
3-3-3Value-feasibility Matrix	Compare value hypotheses and implementation conditions on separate axes, retaining unknowns and hard-limit failures.	Comparable candidates, value criteria, budget/capacity/permission records and each judgment's evidence gaps.	A two-axis comparison, explicit unknowns and a proposed test with conditions for a separate decision.	This value-feasibility matrix is not a game-theory payoff table. It supplies no total score, return rate or success probability. High value may be hypothetical; unknowns are not zeros. Resolve hard constraints first, and do not treat a high/high position as approval.
4-3-2KPI tree	Connect an outcome to compatible counts and rates, specify the arithmetic, and keep targets and causal hypotheses separate.	An outcome definition, traceable counts from a compatible cohort, units, observation window, data source and a proposed target.	A metric tree with explicit arithmetic, a reproducible baseline, target assumptions and a next data check.	Decomposition is not causation. Numerators, denominators and outcome maturity must agree. Do not calculate through overlapping groups, unmatched periods or a zero denominator. Keep targets, leading indicators and measured effects distinct. The diagram illustrates a two-level product identity; other decompositions need their own operations.
4-3-3AARRR	Review acquisition, activation, retention, revenue, and referral with explicit events, cohorts, observation windows, and denominators.	Counts or observations for a defined cohort, the events behind each measure, the relevant time windows, and known gaps in the data.	A shared record of five diagnostic areas and the evidence needed for the next investigation or experiment.	A lower count does not identify a cause. Revenue and referral can occur independently. Compare rates only when cohort membership, event definitions, and observation windows support the denominator; do not infer a conversion rate from adjacent cards.
5-1-1KPT retrospective	Separate practices to keep, observed problems, and changes to try, then agree how to check the next experiment.	A defined activity or period, observations from participants, relevant results, and constraints on the next cycle.	An editable three-column retrospective with practices to keep, problems to investigate, and proposed experiments with review details.	KPT organizes a discussion; it does not establish root causes, assign blame, or prove that a proposed change will work. The worksheet does not assign tasks or send reminders. A Try remains a proposal until the responsible people agree to it, and missing details remain unconfirmed.
5-1-3PDCA Review Sheet	Connect a plan, recorded execution, a comparable check and a conditional next action in one review sheet.	Cycle scope, comparable baseline, hypothesis, target and quality guardrail, execution records, denominators and exceptions.	An evidence-based P/D/C/A review, remaining explanations and a conditional next-cycle plan.	Separate plan, execution, interpretation and next action. Keep counts, percentage points and relative changes distinct. A before/after sample does not establish causation; a speed target does not override failed quality. This working sheet is not a certification checklist. Proposed standardization needs a decision; PDCA and PDSA terminology remains distinct.
5-2-1Business process inventory	List actual tasks, ownership, inputs, outputs, and time on a common basis before choosing a process to improve.	A defined team or process, an observation period, actual task records, and a consistent definition of time. Separate active work from waiting and avoid counting the same effort twice.	An editable seven-column task inventory and a short list of improvement candidates with evidence to investigate next.	An inventory describes recorded work; it does not establish a root cause, rank employees, or calculate recoverable capacity. Weekly staff-hours and elapsed lead time measure different things. Check units and observation periods before combining records.
5-3-1Shortage, Excess and Imbalance Analysis	Compare resources and demand by session, then investigate allocation and practice differences before choosing a change.	Work scope, demand, available resources, units, periods, quality limits, practice records and unknowns.	A shortage/excess/imbalance issue list, local arithmetic gaps and conditional change candidates.	Judge resources against a specific need and window. Idle capacity may be a necessary buffer; it is not automatically removable. Equal totals cannot cancel time mismatches. Capacity cannot move across sessions or skills without checking constraints. Different practices do not prove causes. These three lenses are not a renaming of another lean taxonomy or an employee rating.
5-3-3Business improvement proposal	Connect the problem and evidence to a proposed change, expected benefit, resources, implementation, and review.	Evidence of the problem, verified explanations and remaining hypotheses, an improvement option, estimated resources, and the decision or approval needed.	An editable seven-part proposal that separates evidence, expected benefit, resource estimates, implementation responsibilities, and risk checks.	A written proposal does not grant approval or establish a return on investment. Targets and estimated effort remain assumptions until checked. Staff effort in person-days is not elapsed calendar time or a cash budget. This tool organizes supplied facts without calculating feasibility, allocating resources, or approving a plan.
6-1-2Will / Can / Must	Compare stated interests, demonstrated capability and confirmed requirements for the same tasks, preserving gaps and unknowns.	The person’s stated interests, task-specific capability evidence, requirement sources and confirmation, resources and review date.	Three evidence sets, task overlap and gaps, and a proposed action or support arrangement.	Do not infer a person’s preferences from a manager’s opinion. Training potential is not demonstrated capability; a proposed requirement is not a confirmed duty. Overlap area is not a score or career prediction. No overlap can prompt negotiation rather than forced agreement. The diagram neither selects tasks nor grants authority.
6-1-3Need–Want matrix	Discuss organizational need and personal willingness separately, then agree priorities, support, and task allocation.	The organizational goal, concrete tasks, members' stated interests and constraints, and the reasons behind each assessment.	An editable context and four groups of tasks, with proposed priorities, support changes, and questions to resolve with the people doing the work.	Need and Want are qualitative judgments tied to this situation. Low willingness is not proof of a poor attitude, and high interest does not establish organizational value. The matrix does not approve budgets, assign people, or justify abandoning necessary work. Discuss barriers and support before deciding task allocation; confirm missing owners, limits, and review conditions.
6-3-1Herzberg's two-factor theory	Distinguish problems with basic working conditions from opportunities for achievement and growth, then plan and review both kinds of support.	Specific accounts of dissatisfaction and meaningful work, including working conditions, rules, tools, recognition, responsibility, and development opportunities.	Separate plans for repairing basic conditions and improving work content, with feedback to check each plan.	Improving conditions does not guarantee motivation, and offering extra tasks is not automatically meaningful responsibility. Treat the distinction as a hypothesis to discuss with employees, not a universal rule or a reason to dismiss pay and working conditions.
6-3-2Will / Skill Matrix	Use stated willingness and demonstrated task skill to discuss support, retaining unknowns and explicit authority boundaries.	Task, observable success criteria, date, personal statements, task-skill records, barriers and unknowns.	A task-specific willingness/skill map, evidence gaps and proposed support and review arrangements.	Do not infer willingness from silence, overtime or expression, or skill from title or one error. High/low categories are contextual judgments, not personality, performance scores or diagnoses. Unknowns stay outside. A quadrant neither delegates authority nor compels compliance; clear steps and training are still needed when both dimensions are low.
6-3-3GROW model	Clarify a goal, examine the current reality, explore options, and let the person choose an action and a way to follow up.	The person’s desired outcome, current evidence and constraints, available support, and possible actions.	A goal, a view of the current situation, several options, and a next action chosen by the person, with timing and follow-up.	Ask open questions rather than decide on the person’s behalf. Will is also described as Way forward. A suggested action is not a commitment unless the person confirms it, and a commitment does not mean the action is completed.

More scenario matches do not mean a better framework. Choose for your specific question.How to use the library