Lightning Decision Jam (LDJ)

Lightning Decision Jam is a problem-solving workshop created by AJ&Smart. It helps a group move forward without endless open discussion, through a series of timed, visual, and mostly silent steps. The central principle is to 'work together, alone': everyone produces individually, then the group prioritises by voting. The workshop brings forth challenges, solutions, and then concrete actions with a designated responsible person.

Walkthrough

1. 1

   Frame the workshop and establish the silence rule

   5 to 10 min

   The facilitator presents the objective: 'We will solve a concrete issue without open debate, progressing through short, silent, and visible steps.' They remind that the workshop works for 3 to 8 participants and can last from 45 to 90 minutes depending on the level of detail expected. They announce the 8 sequences: advances, obstacles, voting, reformulation into How might we, ideas, voting, impact/effort matrix, actions. Participants listen, ask only clarification questions, and then accept the rule: produce alone before deciding together.

   Tip — Be very firm about the silence from the start: present it as a protection against the influence of the loudest voices, not as a school-like constraint.

2. 2

   List what helps us move forward

   5 to 10 min

   The facilitator gives the instruction: 'Individually note, on separate post-its, everything that already helps us move forward on the topic. One idea per post-it, with a short and readable formulation.' Everyone works in silence, without commenting on others' ideas. The post-its are then displayed on the wall or shared board, without debate or justification. This step establishes a positive foundation and reminds that the group is not starting from scratch.

   Tip — Start with this step even if the group arrives with a lot of frustration: it lowers tension and prevents the workshop from becoming just a list of complaints.

3. 3

   List what hinders us

   5 to 15 min

   The facilitator continues: 'Now, note everything that hinders us, blocks us, or makes the topic difficult. Still one idea per post-it, in silence, without seeking a solution yet.' Participants individually write down their problems and then display them. The facilitator may group similar post-its together, only to facilitate reading, without reformulating the content on behalf of the group. The aim is to make the obstacles visible before choosing which ones deserve collective energy.

   Tip — If a participant starts to explain their post-it, gently interrupt: 'Keep the explanation to yourself for now; if it's important, the vote will bring it out.'

4. 4

   Prioritise problems by voting

   5 to 10 min

   The facilitator distributes stickers or activates voting in the remote tool. They indicate: 'Vote for the problems that you believe should be addressed as a priority. You vote in silence, without campaigning or justification.' Participants place their votes on the obstacle post-its. The facilitator then identifies the most voted problems and sets them aside for the next steps, without opening a discussion on the results.

   Tip — If possible, hide the initial votes, or ask participants to vote simultaneously: this limits the herd effect and makes prioritisation more sincere.

5. 5

   Transform priority problems into 'How might we' challenges

   5 to 15 min

   The facilitator takes the priority problems and guides their reformulation: 'We will transform each blockage into an actionable challenge, in the form: How might we…?' The group does not debate the problem; it seeks a formulation that opens possibilities without imposing a solution. The facilitator writes a clear reformulation for each selected problem. Participants only validate that the challenge retains the meaning of the initial problem and inspires action.

   Tip — Avoid formulations that already contain an answer, for example, 'How might we buy this tool?'; steer them back to the need to be solved.

6. 6

   Imagine solutions in silence

   5 to 15 min

   The facilitator gives the instruction: 'For each retained How might we challenge, propose possible solutions. Work alone, quickly, without self-censorship, one solution per post-it.' Participants ideate in silence, allowing more reserved profiles to contribute as much as the quicker speakers. The ideas are then displayed under the corresponding challenge. The facilitator ensures not to comment on the quality of the solutions at this stage.

   Tip — When energy dips, remind that solutions do not need to be perfect: they just need to be concrete enough to be understood and voted on.

7. 7

   Vote on the solutions

   5 to 10 min

   The facilitator explains: 'Now vote for the solutions that seem most interesting to explore or implement. Voting remains silent: no advocacy, no defending ideas.' Participants place their stickers or digital votes on the solutions. The facilitator identifies the solutions that stand out and selects them for the next step. Unselected ideas remain visible but no longer take up workshop time.

   Tip — Do not let the author of an idea defend it before the vote: in LDJ, the clarity of the post-it should be sufficient; otherwise, the idea is not yet simple enough.

8. 8

   Classify impact/effort and convert into actions

   10 to 20 min

   The facilitator draws or opens an impact/effort matrix and places the selected solutions with the group according to their expected impact and the effort required. They remind the decision rule: 'We are primarily looking for solutions with high impact and low effort.' These solutions are transformed into concrete actions, each with a clearly named responsible person. The facilitator concludes by rereading the actions, the responsible persons, and what needs to happen after the workshop.

   Tip — To avoid vague promises, refuse actions without a concrete verb or responsible person; ask: 'Who does what first?' until a clear commitment is obtained.

Variants

• Short version: limit the number of challenges addressed after voting on problems, to focus ideation and the impact/effort matrix on the most critical topics.
• In-depth version: spend more time on reformulating into 'How might we' to address ambiguous or sensitive problems before moving on to solutions.
• Remote version: use a collaborative whiteboard with digital post-its, integrated voting, and impact/effort matrix; maintain the same rules of silence and voting without advocacy.
• Executive team version: emphasise the last step by requiring that each action arising from high impact and low effort solutions has a responsible person present in the workshop.