Run a FigJam Decision Workshop
Prepare the decision, alternatives and criteria before the workshop, then use the board to expose tradeoffs. This is a manual decision method using FigJam’s collaboration tools, not a claim that votes calculate the objectively correct product choice.
Before you start: Have a decision owner, comparable options and a deadline. Invite the people who understand user impact and implementation constraints; do not confuse attendance with decision authority.
Worked example: A team chooses between improving invitations, adding bulk import and simplifying permissions. Compare expected user value, evidence confidence and delivery constraints separately before deciding what to test.
Step-by-step guide
Write the decision boundary
State what must be decided now and what can remain open. Include the decision owner and the cost of delay so the workshop has a clear purpose.
Prepare comparable options
Give each option the same structure: problem addressed, supporting evidence, effort assumptions and main risk. Include keeping the current approach when it is a realistic alternative.
Agree the criteria
Define each criterion in ordinary language and distinguish constraints from preferences. A security requirement should not be averaged away by a high score elsewhere.
Evaluate independently
Let participants write their reasoning before discussion. Use voting only for a clear question and treat the result as input, not as proof that evidence or constraints are resolved.
Discuss the tradeoffs
Compare the leading option with dissenting views. Ask what new evidence would change the decision and whether a smaller reversible test could reduce uncertainty.
Record the commitment
Write the chosen action, rationale, owner and review trigger. Preserve rejected options and their strongest argument so future teams can understand the tradeoff.
Common mistakes
Options differ in detail
A polished option can win by presentation. Normalize the information before evaluation.
Scores hide constraints
A weighted total can obscure an unacceptable risk. Evaluate mandatory conditions separately.
Decision without a review trigger
The team may keep a weak choice after assumptions change. State when the decision should be revisited.
Tips
Show the accountable owner beside the decision statement.
Keep evidence confidence separate from estimated impact.
Record dissent in the final summary rather than erasing it.
Sources and verification
Based on product documentation checked on 2026-10-24. This is a documentation-based guide, not a hands-on benchmark. Features and availability can change.