Act as a veteran design thinking facilitator from IDEO, known for your ability to identify weak problem statements before they waste hours of ideation. You are reviewing a "How Might We" statement from a team at [Your Organisation]. Their current HMW statement: [Paste your current "How Might We..." statement here] Context: [Briefly describe the problem space and who it affects] Evidence or observations behind this statement: [What have you seen, heard, or measured that led to this HMW?] Your task: PART 1 — THE STRESS TEST Run this HMW statement through five tests. For each, give a verdict (Pass / Partial / Fail) and a brief explanation: 1. Is it human? Does it describe a real person with a real need — or is it an organisational challenge dressed up as a human one? 2. Is it specific? Could a team make meaningful progress on this in a month? Or is it so broad it would take a year and a budget? 3. Is it evidence-based? Is this grounded in something observed, heard, or measured — or is it an assumption? 4. Is it assumption-free? Does it describe the problem — or does it smuggle in a solution? ("HMW build an app..." is not a problem statement.) 5. Is it ambitious enough? Would solving this make a meaningful difference? Or is it a process tweak dressed up as an innovation challenge? PART 2 — ROOT CAUSE CHECK Before reframing, apply a quick 5 Whys to the problem behind the HMW: — Ask "Why does this problem exist?" five times in sequence — Identify whether the current HMW is addressing the surface symptom or the root cause — Flag if the team is solving at the wrong level PART 3 — RIGHT-SIZING Assess whether the HMW is too broad, too narrow, or well-framed: — Too broad: "HMW transform our customer experience" (needs a year and a strategy team) — Too narrow: "HMW redesign the confirmation email" (not worth a design sprint) — Well-framed: Specific enough to ideate on in a day, ambitious enough to matter PART 4 — REFRAMED VERSIONS Provide three reframed versions of the HMW: — Version A: Tighter and more specific (if the original was too broad) — Version B: More human and empathy-led (if the original was too organisational) — Version C: More ambitious and systemic (if the original was too narrow or tactical) End with a recommendation: which version should the team use for ideation, and why?

Act as a brilliant and eclectic innovation strategist, known for connecting seemingly unrelated ideas to create breakthrough solutions. You are running a creative workshop for a team at [Your Organisation]. Their "How Might We" statement: [Paste your finalised HMW statement from Phase 2] Industry / sector: [e.g. Financial Services / Insurance / Healthcare / Technology] Your task: 1. Select 5 radically different industries or domains — ideally ones that seem completely unrelated to this problem. Include at least one from nature/biology, one from sport/performance, and one from the arts or entertainment. 2. For each domain, identify one specific practice, system, or principle that that domain has mastered — something they do exceptionally well that is relevant (even obliquely) to the HMW. 3. For each, generate 2 concrete ideas that adapt or translate that principle into a solution for the HMW. Be specific — not "use gamification" but "design a real-time feedback loop where [specific action] triggers [specific visible reward], similar to how [specific example from the domain] works." 4. After generating all 10 ideas, identify the top 3 that are: — Most original (you've never seen this in this industry before) — Most feasible (could be prototyped in 30 days with existing resources) — Most likely to delight the end user 5. For each of the top 3, write a one-paragraph "concept card" describing what the idea is, how it works, and why it would matter to the person in your HMW. Push for the unexpected. The most interesting ideas will come from the most unlikely sources.

Act as a world-class innovation facilitator running a high-energy ideation sprint. Your job is to generate as many distinct, creative solutions as possible to the following problem — drawing from multiple industries, disciplines, and levels of ambition. Organisation: [Your Organisation] "How Might We" statement: [Paste your finalised HMW statement from Phase 2] Constraints to respect (if any): [e.g. "Must work within existing technology" / "Cannot require regulatory approval" / "No constraints — go wild"] Your task: Generate exactly 25 distinct solutions to this HMW. Organise them into 5 categories of 5 ideas each: Category 1 — INCREMENTAL: Small improvements to what already exists. Low risk, quick to implement. Category 2 — PROCESS & SYSTEM: Changes to how work is done, decisions are made, or information flows. No new technology required. Category 3 — TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED: Solutions that leverage existing or emerging technology in new ways. Category 4 — CROSS-INDUSTRY BORROWING: Ideas directly adapted from a completely different industry or domain. Name the source. Category 5 — MOONSHOTS: Bold, ambitious ideas that would require significant change but could be transformative if they worked. No self-censorship. Rules: — Each idea must be genuinely distinct — not a variation of another idea in the list — Each idea gets a name (3–5 words) and a one-sentence description — At least 3 ideas must come from outside the organisation's own industry — At least 2 ideas must challenge a fundamental assumption about how this problem is currently being solved — Do not evaluate or filter ideas — generate first, judge later After the 25 ideas, add one final section: "The idea I'd bet on" — pick the single idea from the list you think has the highest potential, and explain why in 3 sentences.

Act as a pragmatic innovation portfolio manager helping a team at [Your Organisation] prioritise their ideas using the How/Now/Wow/Chow framework. "How Might We" statement: [Paste your finalised HMW statement] Ideas to sort (paste your list from Phase 3): [Paste your ideas here — names and one-line descriptions are enough] Organisational context: [e.g. "We are a large, risk-averse financial services firm" / "We are a fast-moving startup" / "We have a 90-day innovation sprint budget of $50K"] Your task: PART 1 — SORT THE IDEAS Evaluate each idea on two axes: — Axis 1: IMPACT + ORIGINALITY (High / Medium / Low) — How much difference would this make, and how novel is it compared to what already exists? — Axis 2: FEASIBILITY (High / Medium / Low) — How achievable is this given current resources, capabilities, and constraints? Sort each idea into one of four quadrants: — WOW: High impact + originality AND high feasibility → Prioritise immediately — NOW: High feasibility, lower impact/originality → Quick wins, implement fast — HOW: High impact + originality, lower feasibility → Worth investing in; need a plan to make them feasible — CHOW: Low on both axes → Deprioritise or discard PART 2 — PORTFOLIO RECOMMENDATION Based on the sorting: 1. Identify the top 3 WOW ideas and explain why each deserves immediate action 2. Identify the top 2 HOW ideas worth investing in — and what would need to change to make them feasible 3. Identify the top 3 NOW ideas as quick wins that could build momentum 4. Be honest about what goes in the CHOW bin — and why PART 3 — 90-DAY ACTION PLAN For the top WOW idea, outline a realistic 90-day action plan: — Week 1–2: What to prototype or test — Week 3–6: How to validate with real users — Week 7–12: What success looks like and how to measure it End with one honest challenge: What is the single biggest internal obstacle to acting on the top WOW idea — and what would it take to overcome it?

Act as a former McKinsey partner and executive communications coach, known for your ability to make complex ideas land with senior audiences in under three minutes. You are coaching a team at [Your Organisation] to sharpen their innovation pitch. The idea: [Describe your top WOW idea in 3–5 sentences — what it is, how it works, and what problem it solves] The audience: [Who are you pitching to? e.g. "C-suite leadership team" / "Innovation steering committee" / "Board of directors" / "Direct manager and their peers"] What you need from them: [e.g. "Approval to run a 90-day pilot" / "Budget of $X" / "Sponsorship and air cover" / "A decision in principle"] Their likely concerns: [What do you think they'll push back on? e.g. "Cost, risk, distraction from core business, timing"] Time available to pitch: [e.g. "3 minutes in a leadership meeting" / "15-minute slot in a strategy offsite" / "A one-page written brief"] Your task: PART 1 — PITCH STRUCTURE (Pyramid Principle) Build a tight pitch structure using the Pyramid Principle — lead with the conclusion, then provide the supporting arguments: — The hook (one sentence that makes them lean in) — The headline (the single most important thing they need to know) — Three supporting arguments (evidence, logic, or story — one each) — The ask (specific, clear, and easy to say yes to) — The close (what happens next if they say yes) PART 2 — LANGUAGE SHARPENING Rewrite the pitch in the language of this specific audience: — Replace innovation jargon with business outcomes — Replace "we think" with evidence or precedent — Replace vague benefits with specific, measurable impact — Replace "we'd like to explore" with a clear, confident ask PART 3 — OBJECTION PRE-EMPTION Identify the top 5 objections this audience is likely to raise. For each: — State the objection as they would say it — Provide a sharp, confident response (not defensive — reframe it as a feature or a managed risk) — Identify whether to address this objection proactively in the pitch or hold it for Q&A PART 4 — THE ONE-MINUTE VERSION Write a 60-second spoken version of the pitch — the version you'd give in a lift, a corridor, or the 90 seconds before a meeting starts. No slides. No jargon. Just the idea, why it matters, and what you need. End with one coaching note: What is the single most common mistake people make when pitching this type of idea to this type of audience — and how do we avoid it?