Brainwriting

Three reasons to change the session before collecting ideas

First, pause if participants are answering different questions. “Improve the library” and “make after-hours returns clear and traceable” create different idea pools. State one shared question and retain known conditions. A contribution outside the scope can be preserved separately without pretending it answers the agreed task.

Second, stop if silent writing is being presented as anonymous or free from hierarchy without supporting arrangements. Participants may still recognize handwriting or fear later judgment. Explain who will see the sheets and how contributions will be discussed. Do not promise safety or participation merely because nobody speaks during a round.

Third, keep generation separate from selection. Critique, voting, and budget decisions during passing can narrow what people are willing to add. Known restrictions should remain visible, but a facilitator should not silently discard ideas while collecting them. Later screening needs explicit criteria and authority; the number of entries cannot establish quality or demand.

Choose between generation, recombination, explanation, and screening

This guide uses a written brainstorming variant with its own small-session settings. It does not prescribe the six-person, three-idea, five-minute protocol often called 6-3-5. Select related methods according to the next missing output rather than claiming every workshop needs the same sequence.

Trace all nine Starbridge records through the sheets

The complete fictional C4 packet concerns Starbridge Library Service after-hours returns. Twenty synthetic visits on October 12–14, 2026 include twelve during staffed hours and eight outside. These invented visits motivate a teaching question; they are not demand research. Three contributors P1–P3 write on sheets S1–S3 for three rounds of three minutes, one entry per cell. Briefing, passing, clarification, and screening require additional time.

S1 passes P1 to P2 to P3; S2 passes P2 to P3 to P1; S3 passes P3 to P1 to P2. The table supplies every contribution, author, and parent. An extension preserves its earlier record instead of replacing it. A new direction may retain the idea that prompted it without claiming it is the same concept.

Three people multiplied by three rounds and one entry produces nine records. The writing phase lasts nine elapsed minutes; with all three writing throughout, it represents twenty-seven participant-minutes. Neither count measures independent ideas or excludes the extra session work. Group A information, B box, C locker, and D partner counter retain their originating IDs. No screening or pilot has happened.

Preserve the contribution before evaluating the concept

At clarification, ask what an entry means and retain any correction beside its original wording. “Paper equivalent” needs to identify the information it would provide; a numbered slip needs a clear relationship to the returned item. Clarifying these points does not establish that readers understand the arrangement or that the venue permits it.

When grouping the records, keep one-to-many relationships where appropriate. The counter direction arose from the locker chain, but its delivery conditions differ. Do not erase that history to make four neat groups. Repeated ideas, blank cells in a future session, and disagreement can remain in the record without becoming individual performance scores.

For subsequent screening, gather actual estimates, capacity, safety conditions, and permissions. Define who decides and what can be tested. A slip reference, deposit in a box, and confirmed inventory receipt are different events; the proposed reader communication should make that distinction clear. No paid service or demonstrated benefit is supplied.

Review whether the process retained varied contributions and whether the resulting concepts are clear enough to investigate. This is separate from whether a service solves the customer problem. Keep any proposed test, its authorization, execution, and findings as later records rather than writing a successful outcome into the workshop summary.