How Might We

Purpose

How Might We (HMW) transforms observations and problems into actionable opportunity questions. The phrasing is deliberate: "How" assumes there is a solution, "Might" indicates possibility without commitment, and "We" emphasises collective ownership. HMW questions serve as the bridge between problem understanding and ideation.

At a glance

How to run

1. Review insights (5 min): Share the research findings, observations, or problem statements the group will work from.
2. Write HMW questions (8 min): Each participant reformulates insights into "How might we...?" questions on sticky notes. One question per note.
3. Share and cluster (4 min): Post all HMW notes. Group similar questions.
4. Prioritise (3 min): Dot-vote on the most promising HMW questions to carry into ideation.

Materials needed

• Research insights or problem statements (prepared in advance)
• Sticky notes and markers
• Dot stickers for voting
• Whiteboard or wall

Pitfalls & common mistakes

• Too broad: "How might we make everything better?" is useless. Narrow to a specific user and context.
• Too narrow: "How might we add a green button?" is already a solution. Stay at the opportunity level.
• Confusing HMW with brainstorming: HMW generates questions, not solutions. Solutions come next.
• Skipping the research base: HMW without prior insight is just guessing.

Inclusion & accessibility

• Provide insights in writing so everyone starts with the same understanding.
• Silent writing ensures all participants contribute, not just the loudest.
• Use examples to help participants calibrate the right level of abstraction.

Variations

• Extreme HMW: Push questions to provocative extremes ("How might we eliminate the need for X entirely?").
• Stakeholder HMW: Write HMW questions from different stakeholder perspectives.
• Rapid HMW: Time-box to 3 minutes for fast workshop transitions.

When NOT to use this

• When the team has not done research or discovery — the questions will be uninformed.
• When the problem is already well-defined and the team needs solutions, not more reframing.
• When the group is fatigued from too much divergent thinking.

Source & further reading

• Procter & Gamble (original popularisation, 1970s)
• IDEO and d.school (modern adoption)
• Jake Knapp, *Sprint* (2016)