What? So what? Now what? (W³)

What? So what? Now what? is a liberating three-step debriefing structure, derived from the work of Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless. It helps a group analyse an experience, meeting, incident, test, or project by clearly separating facts, interpretations, and decisions. The format involves individual work, then small groups, and finally plenary at each step. It avoids jumping too quickly to solutions and brings forth better-founded actions.

Walkthrough

1. 1

   Setting the framework and the focus of the debrief

   5 min

   The facilitator precisely names the experience to be debriefed: "We will look at what just happened in three steps: What, So what, Now what." They clarify that the group will not seek solutions immediately. Participants must first distinguish the facts, then the meaning they give to them, and finally the possible actions. The facilitator announces that each step will be done individually, in small groups, and then in plenary to hear multiple perceptions.

   Tip — Display the three questions from the start, but cover or grey out the last two during the first step: this really limits the temptation to conclude too quickly.

2. 2

   What? — Collecting facts individually

   4 to 6 min

   The facilitator launches the first step: "What? What happened? What did you observe? What facts can we name without interpreting them?" Each person notes concrete elements individually: events, observed behaviours, heard words, visible results. The facilitator reminds that it is not yet the time to explain, judge, or propose a solution. This individual silence gives equal space to participants and prevents the first voices from steering the entire debrief.

   Tip — When someone is already writing a conclusion, invite them to rephrase it as an observation: "What did you see or hear that makes you say that?"

3. 3

   What? — Sharing observations in small groups then in plenary

   6 to 8 min

   Participants form small groups and share only their observations. The facilitator gives the instruction: "Look for the facts you have in common, and also note the differences in observation. Do not debate the why yet." Then, each group reports in plenary some significant or surprising facts. The facilitator reformulates as needed to maintain the factual level and creates a common base before moving on to interpretation.

   Tip — Use two very simple prompting phrases: "Is it observable?" and "Who else saw something similar or different?"

4. 4

   So what? — Bringing out meaning individually and in small groups

   7 to 9 min

   The facilitator opens the second step: "So what? Why is this important? What patterns, tensions, or conclusions are beginning to emerge?" Each participant first reflects individually on what the facts might mean. Then small groups discuss to identify convergences, differences in interpretation, and possible learnings. The goal is not to be right, but to understand what the observations reveal for the group.

   Tip — If the group starts moving towards action, note the idea in a corner titled "For later" and calmly bring it back: "Before we act, what do we understand?"

5. 5

   So what? — Sharing patterns and conclusions

   5 to 7 min

   In plenary, the facilitator asks each small group to share the patterns or conclusions they find important. They ensure to distinguish what is an interpretation from what was observed in the previous step. They might say: "We are now in the meaning we give to the facts, not yet in the decisions." Participants listen to the different readings and identify what changes their understanding of the situation.

   Tip — Avoid seeking an artificial consensus: divergent interpretations are often the most useful material for preparing realistic actions.

6. 6

   Now what? — Identifying meaningful actions

   7 to 9 min

   The facilitator launches the third step: "Now what? What actions make sense in light of what we have observed and understood?" Participants reflect individually on possible actions, then discuss them in small groups. They prioritise actions related to the facts and previous conclusions, rather than immediate reactions. In plenary, each group proposes the most relevant actions and briefly explains their link to the debrief.

   Tip — Systematically ask: "What fact or conclusion does this action respond to?" This filters out good ideas disconnected from the diagnosis.

7. 7

   Closing with decisions and learning from the process

   4 to 6 min

   The facilitator helps the group clarify what is retained: actions to engage, points to deepen, or decisions to postpone. They recall the path taken: facts, meaning, actions. They ask participants what this separation has changed in their way of debriefing. The closure should leave an actionable trace, without reopening the entire debate or returning to interpretations already addressed.

   Tip — End with a three-part summary sentence: "We observed..., we draw..., we will therefore..." This anchors the W³ logic.

Variants

• Short variant: address a single very focused topic and ask each group to share only one element per step in plenary: one fact, one conclusion, one action.
• Large group variant: multiply small groups and limit plenary reports to new elements, in order to avoid repetitions while maintaining the progression of individual work, small groups, plenary.
• Remote variant: use a shared board with three zones titled "What", "So what", "Now what". Participants first write individually, then discuss in breakout rooms, and finally return to plenary to consolidate each zone.
• Decision-making variant: after the third step, add a short collective prioritisation of the proposed actions, keeping only those that clearly respond to the shared facts and conclusions.