20/20 Vision

20/20 Vision is an innovation game by Luke Hohmann, derived from Innovation Games, inspired by the eye examination at the optician. The group compares cards representing features or benefits, two at a time, to establish a strict order of priority. The game helps to reveal what truly matters to the participants and the criteria they use to make decisions. It facilitates a concrete collective prioritisation, where each decision must be justified against the cards already ranked.

Walkthrough

1. 1

   Define the objective and scope

   5 min

   The facilitator reminds the group of the subject to prioritise and clarifies that each card represents a feature or a benefit. They say: "Our goal is to achieve a strict ranking, with no ties, by comparing the cards two by two. With each choice, we will seek less to be right than to make our priority criteria visible." The participants confirm that the scope is clear and that the cards refer to the same product, service, or issue. This step prevents mixing different levels and prepares for useful decisions.

   Tip — Phrase the initial priority criterion openly, for example, "more important for success" rather than "more profitable", unless the workshop explicitly needs to prioritise based on a single criterion.

2. 2

   Prepare and present the cards

   5 à 10 min

   The facilitator distributes or displays the cards, one idea per card, with a title understandable by all. They quickly check that no one is stuck on the meaning of a card: "If a card is ambiguous, we will clarify it now in one sentence, without starting to defend it." Participants can request a factual rephrasing, but not yet argue about its importance. The cards are then shuffled or stacked, ready to be examined one by one.

   Tip — If a card contains two ideas, split it before the game; otherwise, the group will debate which half they prefer, and the ranking will become unstable.

3. 3

   Set the first reference card

   3 min

   The facilitator takes the first card and places it in the centre of the ranking space, visible to all. They explain: "This first card is not yet the most important; it simply serves as a starting point. The following cards will be placed above if they are more important, below if they are less so." Participants observe without seeking to discuss this first position for too long. The ranking begins intentionally simply to quickly launch the dynamic.

   Tip — Do not let the group take too long to choose the first card: this creates a false issue. Simply take the first from the pile or a randomly drawn card.

4. 4

   Compare the second card

   5 min

   The facilitator reveals the next card and reads it aloud. They ask: "Compared to the card already placed, is this one more important or less important?" The group briefly discusses, then decides to place it above or below the first card. The facilitator rephrases the main reason heard, as this is often the first clue to the group's priority criteria.

   Tip — When two arguments repeat, ask: "What criterion are you using here? customer impact, risk, business value, urgency, something else?" This transforms the discussion into learning.

5. 5

   Insert each new card into the ranking

   15 à 30 min

   For each new card, the facilitator compares it to the already ranked cards, one pair at a time, until its place is found. They say: "Let’s compare only these two cards: which is more important for our objective?" Depending on the answer, the card moves up or down in the list, then it is compared to the next neighbouring card if necessary. Participants must arrive at a strict order, with no ties: each card occupies a unique position.

   Tip — Prevent global debates like "it’s in the top 3". Always bring it back to a specific pair: "Between A and B now, which one goes ahead?"

6. 6

   Stabilise the final order

   5 à 10 min

   When all cards are placed, the facilitator reads the ranking from top to bottom. They ask: "Looking at the complete order, is there an obvious inversion to correct? If so, we will test it through direct comparison, not by general impression." Participants can propose adjustments, but each change must remain consistent with the pairwise comparison rule. The group then confirms the final order as the shared result of the workshop.

   Tip — Limit this phase: one or two passes are sufficient. If the group reopens the entire ranking, it’s often because the scope or priority criterion was not clear enough.

7. 7

   Bring out the criteria and conclude

   7 à 10 min

   The facilitator puts the result into perspective: "The ranking is useful, but the reasons for your decisions are just as important. What have we prioritised without always saying it?" They note the criteria that emerged during the comparisons: perceived value, urgency, risk, assumed effort, user benefit, or any other criterion mentioned by the group. Participants identify the decisions that this ranking makes possible. The facilitator concludes by specifying the next steps: validation, transformation into a backlog, sponsor arbitration, or experimentation.

   Tip — Photograph or export the final ranking with the key criteria noted alongside; without this record, the group will remember the rank but forget why they chose it.

Variants

• Single criterion variant: before starting, the facilitator imposes a comparison angle, for example, "more important for the target user" or "more important for achieving the business objective". This reduces debates but makes priorities visible through a single lens.
• Multi-group variant: with several sub-groups of 3 to 10 participants, each group ranks the same set of cards, then compares the discrepancies between rankings. The debrief then focuses on the differences in criteria and decisions to align.
• Quick variant: limit the number of cards to the most discussed items or those closest in apparent importance. This version is suitable when the goal is to decide on a subset rather than prioritising an entire portfolio.
• Remote variant: use a collaborative whiteboard with one card per repositionable note. The facilitator shares their screen, moves the cards after each comparison, and systematically verbalises the current pair to prevent the group from debating the entire list at once.