Two Evaluation Tools: Thinking Hats and Rose, Thorn, Bud

Learning Objectives:

• Describe the relevance of critique to prototyping in the develop stage of design thinking
• Summarize the Six Thinking Hats and Rose, Thorn, Bud models for critiquing concepts and generating critical questions

Now that you have identified the critical questions related to your innovation concept, it may be tempting to proceed directly to testing with prototypes. In a fast-paced environment, this might be the correct choice. However, I want to emphasize how valuable feedback is at this point in the development process.

Pure evaluation of a concept takes only a small amount of time and does not involve production or the use of materials. If you can incorporate feedback on a concept and refine it before testing the assumptions and risks you have identified, you are more likely to address the correct critical questions, making the prototyping process more productive.

To this end, we will now introduce the next group of tools for the develop phase: evaluation tools. These tools will help you structure and organize group critique sessions to strengthen your concept. Earlier, we emphasized the importance of positive and supportive feedback. Now that you are in the develop phase and focusing on convergent thinking, feedback should still be supportively framed but must also be honest—even if it is negative.

At this stage, you are no longer working with hypothetical ideas. You are about to commit real resources to testing concepts. Therefore, the psychological safety of the team culture must be tempered with constructive honesty to ensure the feedback is effective.

The first evaluation tools you will explore are the six thinking hats, a method described by Edward de Bono. These hats represent six color-coded perspectives that participants can adopt during a critique to guide conversation and ensure diverse viewpoints are represented. Let’s explore these hats now to understand how they create a more balanced evaluation of a concept.

The first evaluation tool we will explore is Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats. Introduced in 1985, the hats represent six perspectives for thinking. You can use each “hat” to challenge team members to provide feedback from a specific perspective.

• White hat: Fact-focused thinking
  • We put on this hat to separate facts from beliefs. For example, we might ask,
    • “What do the data and quantitative surveys tell us about this concept?”
• Yellow hat: Positive critique
  • When thinking from a yellow-hat perspective, we focus on positive thinking, strengthening weaknesses, and working toward solutions (rather than probing for issues). For example, we might ask,
    • “As it currently stands, how might we operationalize the concept?”
• Green hat: Creativity and alternatives
  • Green-hat thinking focuses on generating new or alternative ideas and approaches. For example,
    • “This idea shows promise—how could we add it to the concept?”
• Red hat: Feelings, emotion, intuition
  • We put on this hat to focus on the emotional experiences of users and their latent pain points. Group leaders may call for more red-hat thinking if a team is getting bogged down in technical details. For example,
    • “Are users comfortable, happy, or fulfilled in this experience? What is it from our user research that makes you think so?”
• Black hat: Negative critique
  • Team members put on this hat when they want to address areas of concern or potential failure. For example,
    • “Based on our research, I think this idea in the concept may introduce as many pain points as it solves. What do you think?”
• Blue hat: Management of the thinking process
  • The blue hat is about process control. This high-level perspective guides the conversation and decides on next steps. For example,
    • “We have discussed the data for a long time now. Let’s adopt the red-hat perspective for a change. How do users feel about this concept?”

At this point, people often think, why should I go to the trouble of memorizing colors and calling for different hats during a discussion? The advantage of the six thinking hats is that they provide a shorthand for recognizing and breaking through persistent habits in your thinking.

For example, after a feedback session, your design team might come together to determine a process for responding to the feedback and revisiting ideation. This is blue-hat thinking. If the feedback on the concept poster requires reviewing facts from observations, the team would engage in white-hat thinking. If they realize certain emotional aspects of the problem were overlooked when considering desirability, they would shift to red-hat thinking.

To examine issues and difficulties exposed during discussions, the team would use the black hat, then shift to green-hat thinking to explore creative solutions and yellow-hat thinking to focus on opportunities and optimism.

The leader wearing the blue hat participates in all these discussions but ensures the team moves smoothly between phases, preventing them from getting stuck in one line of thought. Often, debates become locked or heated because people are overly focused on a single perspective. For example, they may fixate on survey data but fail to consider the user’s emotional perspective.

As with any tool or framework, there is a risk of spending too much time on the process instead of the content. You are not obligated to adopt each hat in every discussion. Instead, use the thinking hats to structure team conversations, break through mental blocks, and make discussions more efficient.

The following are helpful guidelines for applying Edward de Bono’s framework for critical thinking:

• Establish a process leader (blue hat) for the critique session, especially on new and unfamiliar teams.
• Facts (white hat) are a good way to start a discussion with an objective viewpoint.
• Getting to the emotional (red hat) aspects early is beneficial because this is one place where cognitive fixedness blocks creative thinking. Applying empathy to push beyond your own reactions to the facts can redirect a discussion to latent pain points.
• Ask for negative (black hat) thinking after creative exploration (green hat). This will help you explore the downsides of ideas before concluding with a positive perspective (yellow hat).

While we have focused on using the Six Thinking Hats as a tool in the develop phase of innovative thinking to evaluate different concepts, they can also be used during the ideation phase. Teams can use the Six Thinking Hats to build on different ideas—for example, by identifying weaknesses (black hat), adding emotion to the ideas (red hat), or building on an idea (green hat).

While the Six Thinking Hats are effective, there are times when you may wish to apply a narrow focus when evaluating a concept. A tool from the LUMA Institute called “Rose, Thorn, Bud” allows you to do so.

While the colors are different, the three concepts used in Rose, Thorn, Bud are closely related to three of Edward de Bono’s hats: Yellow-hat optimism becomes rose, black-hat concern becomes thorn, and green-hat possibility becomes bud.

• Rose (Pink): Like de Bono’s yellow hat, rose comments are about positive points and ideas. These are things a team member wants to emphasize or develop further.
• Thorn (Blue): Like the black hat, thorn comments are problem areas that a team member wants to address before advancing.
• Bud (Green): Bud comments indicate that something shows promise—it might become a rose—but it needs further development. This potential differentiates a bud from a thorn.
  • For example, saying “I don’t think the user would get this emotional benefit from the concept” (thorn) is different from saying “I think this could result in an emotional benefit if the concept was strengthened in this way” (bud).

With Rose, Thorn, Bud, individuals can evaluate concepts on their own before coming together for a discussion. For example, you could create a large concept poster and ask team members to attach color-coded sticky notes to areas of the concept poster where they want to leave feedback.

If you are unable to use color because of the platform you are using or because of a team member’s accessibility needs, everyone can simply label elements as roses, thorns, or buds.

Inviting individuals from outside the team to do the Rose, Thorn, Bud exercise allows more people to engage in developing the concept, thereby adding valuable new perspectives to the discussion.

Critique is important to the innovation process, but it can be emotionally challenging. After putting time and effort into the development of testable concepts, you may naturally feel resistant to criticism or reluctant to let go of solutions you truly believe in. However, the potential for hurt feelings should not lead you to take it easy when evaluating concepts.

I want to emphasize again that the critique process should not be a feel-good exercise. You must offer and be open to constructive but truly critical evaluations of innovation concepts. Tools like Six Thinking Hats and Rose, Thorn, Bud are excellent starting points for fostering deeper discussions.

• The Six Thinking Hats framework provides structure, imparting a sense of objectivity and collaboration.
• Rose, Thorn, Bud critiques focus discussions on what’s working (rose), what might work (bud), and what may need to be dropped (thorn).

While critique has the potential to hurt feelings, it also brings the excitement of possibility and the thrill of insight. Expanding the review of your concept posters by inviting people outside the team can provide valuable perspectives. Sometimes, teams fall in love with a concept, and an outside perspective can offer a much-needed reality check.

The difficult work of evaluation should always aim to improve the final design. Like surgeons operating on a patient, innovators must put aside egos and focus on fixing and refining the object of their attention. As you provide feedback, keep this question in mind: How can I help this innovation concept be even better?