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

Manage organizations

Swipe the table sideways on mobile →

Framework summary by scenario
Framework	Purpose	What to bring	What you will have	Limits and cautions
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.
1-3-1Urgency–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.
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.
4-2-5Organizational chart	Show roles and relationships with an explicit line meaning, keeping project coordination, personnel reporting and decision rights distinct.	The organization or project scope, roles, supported duties, reporting and coordination relationships, staffing status and uncertain authority.	A role chart with defined lines, an authority and interface note, unconfirmed relationships and a review plan.	Position is neither a measure of ability nor a grant of budget or approval rights. Separate proposed lines, actual reporting and personnel management. Retain cross-functional relationships rather than forcing them into a tree. Confirm R/A/C/I for individual deliverables separately.
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.
5-1-2YWT reflection	Reflect on what you did, what you learned, and what you will do next, using a specific experience.	A completed activity, what actually happened, relevant feedback, your interpretation, and the next opportunity to act on the learning.	An editable three-step reflection connecting actual action, a learning point with its basis, and a proposed next action and check.	YWT supports reflection and self-directed learning. It is not a performance rating or a way to blame someone. A personal insight is an interpretation, not proof of another person's priorities or the cause of an outcome. Test a proposed next action before claiming an effect.
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.
5-2-4RACI matrix	Assign execution, accountability, consultation and information for each deliverable, then check authority, capacity and actual agreement.	Stable tasks and deliverables, roles and authority records, working relationships, information needs, acceptance status and availability.	A per-deliverable RACI draft with gaps, authority questions, communication triggers and confirmation actions.	Accountable is not automatically the approver of every step; approval rights need separate evidence. Multiple R contributors or a combined R/A are possible, but this worksheet uses one A per row. Write None where C or I is unnecessary. Assignments do not prove acceptance, available capacity or authorization; discuss gaps and conflicts.
6-1-1Mission, vision, and values	Clarify why an organization exists, the future it aims for, and the behaviors that guide difficult choices.	The organization’s purpose, desired direction, customer concerns, and decisions that expose conflicting priorities.	Distinct statements of mission, vision, and values, with behaviors to discuss and test.	A slogan does not ensure alignment or consistent service. The statements need practical examples, discussion, and review; proposed commitments must be achievable.
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.
6-2-1Johari window	Compare what you and others know about work behavior, then agree a voluntary feedback conversation and a collaboration experiment.	Your own observations, specific feedback offered by others, and information you choose to disclose. Agree the work-related scope and feedback rules first.	A four-area awareness worksheet, questions to clarify with others, and a small collaboration experiment to review.	The diagram cannot discover a blind spot without feedback or infer private information. Disclosure is voluntary. Equal-sized boxes are a layout choice, not a measurement of awareness or trust.
6-2-2Cognition–Action Cycle	Separate both people’s actions and interpretations, then ask about assumptions before trying a clearer communication practice.	Dated words and actions, my interpretation and response, labelled hypotheses about the other person and dialogue records.	A two-person cognition/action map, confirmed statements and unknowns, plus a reviewable communication change.	Another person’s cognition is a hypothesis until they speak about it; a self-report still is not proof of every motive. The loop is a reflection aid, not established causation. Do not label personalities or force agreement or blame. An unagreed deadline cannot become a retrospective breach. Use appropriate conflict processes where needed.
6-2-3Want / Commitment	Share what people want and what they can offer, then distinguish possible matches from mutually agreed and completed help.	Personal wants, offered resources or help, availability, potential recipients and evidence of acceptance or completion.	Want/contribution records, possible matches and cooperation agreements with explicit status.	Commitment in this exercise starts as what I can contribute; it is not automatically an accepted obligation. Wants are not entitlements, and contributions need not balance in number or value. Check time, authority and acceptance. Keep proposed, agreed and done distinct, and do not compel disclosure or rate people by their entries.
6-2-4PM leadership theory	Examine performance and group maintenance behaviors using observations and team feedback, then choose an improvement.	The team's goals and situation, observed delivery and leadership behavior, member feedback, and uncertainties about the assessment.	An editable context and four behavior profiles, with a tentative interpretation and proposed actions to support both delivery and collaboration.	This worksheet is a qualitative discussion aid, not the validated PM questionnaire or a calculated leadership score. Uppercase and lowercase letters distinguish the two functions; they are not permanent personality labels. One event or on-time delivery alone cannot establish a profile. Better support is a proposed change, not a guaranteed performance improvement.
6-2-5Stakeholder analysis	Identify people who affect or are affected by a change, check influence and interest separately, and plan communication around their actual needs.	A specific change and stage, affected or influential roles, authority records, expressed concerns, open questions and communication constraints.	An influence–interest matrix with reasons, an unplaced list for unknown roles, and a draft communication plan with purpose, owner, channel and review point.	Influence is not limited to job title. Interest is not willingness to cooperate, support or personality. Both axes are contextual judgments, not objective scores; leave unknown roles unplaced. Lower-influence people still have rights and information needs. Planned contact does not establish agreement or approval.
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