Methodological module
Six Thinking Hats
The decision needs one more deliberate perspective check.
- When it helps
- Use it when discussion loops, people defend positions, or an important decision needs a balanced perspective check.
- Origin
- Six Thinking Hats · de Bono: deliberate perspective shifts
What this module does
Six Thinking Hats separates perspectives that are often mixed into one argument. A group or individual looks at facts, feelings, risks, benefits, alternatives, and process in turn.
How to use it
- Blue: define the question and order of the round.
- White: list known facts and missing information.
- Red: name feelings and intuitions without justification.
- Black: identify risks and weak points.
- Yellow: identify value and reasons it could work.
- Green: generate alternatives and improvements.
- Blue: summarize and choose the next action.
Practical example
Situation
Partners disagree about opening a second location and repeat the same financial and emotional arguments.
Result
A shared round separates missing footfall data from fear of overload, identifies the brand benefit, and produces a lower-risk pop-up experiment.
Limitations
- The hats organize attention; they do not make weak evidence strong.
- Rigid facilitation can feel theatrical or slow.
- Do not use a hat label to dismiss someone’s concern.
Standalone template
Copy these prompts and work through them without Selecton.
Question / decision: …
White — facts and gaps: …
Red — feelings: …
Black — risks: …
Yellow — value: …
Green — alternatives: …
Blue — synthesis and next action: …
How it fits into Selecton
The app keeps a reliable five-stage baseline and now adds an adaptive-methods-v1 layer: typed method cards can be selected automatically or received as an explicit lens from a method page. Full non-linear routing and effectiveness measurement remain under evaluation.
Auto, adaptation, and combinations
The intended Auto mode selects one primary method for the next useful move, based on the state of the decision. A route may use different modules in sequence—for example GROW to clarify a goal, weighted criteria to compare options, then a pre-mortem to test the plan. They are not blended into an opaque prompt: every transition should remain explainable and reversible to the baseline route.