HKSM

A structured facilitation method to generate and prioritize ideas by having participants think individually, share in turn, clarify, and privately vote or rank. It ensures balanced participation and produces a clear, prioritized list for decision-making.

Key Points

• Uses silent individual idea generation followed by round-robin sharing to include every voice.
• Clarification happens without debate, then participants privately rank or vote.
• Produces a prioritized list based on aggregated scores, reducing dominance and groupthink.
• Best with small groups (5–9 participants), time-boxed segments, and a focused prompt.
• Works in-person or virtually with digital boards and anonymous polling.

Purpose of Analysis

Convert raw input from stakeholders into a ranked set of requirements or options that reflect collective preferences. The results guide scope boundaries, backlog ordering, and trade-off decisions when resources are limited.

• Resolve conflicting needs by revealing where support concentrates.
• Highlight must-have versus nice-to-have items based on actual votes.
• Create a transparent, auditable record of prioritization to support approvals.

Method Steps

• Frame the prompt: State the decision focus (e.g., “Which features deliver the most value for release 1?”) and criteria to consider.
• Silent idea generation: 3–10 minutes for participants to list ideas individually.
• Round-robin listing: Each person contributes one idea per turn to a shared board until all ideas are posted.
• Clarify and consolidate: Combine duplicates and ensure everyone understands each item without debating merit.
• Private voting or ranking: Assign points to top items (e.g., 5-3-1), dot-vote, or rank order; collect votes anonymously.
• Tally and prioritize: Sum scores, break ties with additional criteria if needed, and produce the ranked list.
• Confirm and record: Validate the outcome, capture rationales, owners, and next actions.

Inputs Needed

• Well-defined prompt or decision question aligned to scope objectives.
• Relevant stakeholder participants representing business, users, and technical roles.
• Decision criteria or constraints such as value, risk, cost, compliance, and time.
• Existing artifacts like user stories, requirement drafts, research, or metrics.
• Facilitation tools: virtual whiteboard, voting app, timer, and visible workspace.

Outputs Produced

• Ranked list of requirements, features, or options with vote totals.
• Documented clarifications, merged items, and assumptions.
• Decision log entries capturing the prioritization outcome and rationale.
• Action items for further analysis, estimation, or prototyping.
• Updates to the product backlog, requirement register, or scope baseline candidates.

Interpretation Tips

• Look at score distribution, not just the top item; wide spreads indicate strong preference, tight clusters suggest more analysis is needed.
• Treat results as a decision input; apply governance or role-based weighting when appropriate.
• Revisit items with low clarity scores or frequent misunderstandings before finalizing.
• Address ties using agreed criteria such as value vs. effort or risk reduction.
• Validate that critical compliance or architectural needs are not deprioritized solely by popularity.

Example

A team planning the first release of a mobile banking app needs to select features. The facilitator poses the prompt, “Which features deliver the greatest customer value in the first 3 months?” Participants ideate silently, then share items like mobile deposit, balance alerts, biometric login, and bill pay. After clarifying and merging duplicates, each person allocates 5, 3, and 1 points to their top three features. Tallying reveals mobile deposit and biometric login as clear leaders. The team records the prioritized list, notes that bill pay depends on a third-party API, and schedules follow-up estimation.

Pitfalls

• Poorly framed prompt causing scattered or incomparable ideas.
• Allowing debate during clarification, which pressures quieter participants.
• Insufficient stakeholder representation leading to skewed results.
• Non-anonymous voting that creates conformity bias.
• Over-reliance on vote totals without considering constraints and dependencies.
• Skipping documentation of assumptions and tie-break reasoning.
• Combining too many items, losing important nuances in requirements.

PMP Example Question

A project manager needs a fast, inclusive way to prioritize competing requirements while minimizing dominant voices. Which approach should they use?

1. Unstructured brainstorming with open debate.
2. Delphi technique with multiple expert surveys.
3. Nominal group with round-robin idea sharing and private ranking.
4. MoSCoW categorization by the product owner alone.

Correct Answer: C — Nominal group with round-robin idea sharing and private ranking.

Explanation: Nominal group ensures balanced participation and anonymous voting to prioritize requirements. Delphi is slower and expert-focused, while the other options risk dominance or lack broad input.