Six Thinking Hats - Revision history

Tkokotas at 17:31, 16 November 2018

2018-11-16T17:31:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 16 November 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
			''Developed by Matthew Wells''


	==Overview==		==Overview==

Matthew Wells at 22:50, 28 February 2018

2018-02-28T22:50:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, 28 February 2018
Line 215:		Line 215:
	==Annotated Bibliography==		==Annotated Bibliography==

	A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide Fifth edition) is a set of US based guidelines used in the preparation and management of individual projects and covers a body of project management terminology, vocabulary, frameworks, tools and concepts. The book provides good practices and a set of standards, methods and processes from which to conduct project management activities from.		A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide Fifth edition) is a set of US based project management guidelines used in the preparation and management of individual projects and covers a body of project management terminology, vocabulary, frameworks, tools and concepts. The book provides good practices and a set of standards, methods and processes from which to conduct project management activities from. The book is robust and detailed in its approach and adequately covers all topics of interest to a project manager.

	PRINCE2 (Projects in a Controlled Environment 2) is a UK project management standards guideline developed in collaboration with academics, project managers/sponsors/teams and with experience from past projects. The guidelines are to be used for anyone wishing to learn the PRINCE2 method for project management and for practitioners of all experience levels.		PRINCE2 (Projects in a Controlled Environment 2) is a UK project management standards guideline developed in collaboration with academics, project managers/sponsors/teams and with experience from past projects. The guidelines are to be used for anyone wishing to learn the PRINCE2 method for project management and for practitioners of all experience levels.

Matthew Wells at 22:47, 28 February 2018

2018-02-28T22:47:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:47, 28 February 2018
Line 191:		Line 191:
	==Further Reading==		==Further Reading==

	"The Five Stages of Thinking" is a subsequent tool directly related to the Six Thinking Hats discussion, ideation and decision-making method, published by Edward De Bono in 1973. The Five Stages of Thinking was developed for the Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) Thinking Program and further explores the strength of perceptive thinking and how thinking is a skill that can be developed. The Five Stages of Thinking provides a complementary analytical toolkit that correspond to the different thinking hats. For example, yellow hat thinking should use a tool called PMI, standing for plus, minus and interesting.		"The Five Stages of Thinking" is a subsequent tool directly related to the Six Thinking Hats discussion, ideation and decision-making method, published by Edward De Bono in 1973. The Five Stages of Thinking was developed for the Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) Thinking Program and further explores the strength of perceptive thinking and how thinking is a skill that can be developed. The Five Stages of Thinking provides a complementary analytical toolkit that correspond to the different thinking hats. For example, yellow hat thinking should use a tool called PMI; standing for plus, minus and interesting.

	==References==		==References==

Matthew Wells at 22:47, 28 February 2018

2018-02-28T22:47:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:47, 28 February 2018
Line 191:		Line 191:
	==Further Reading==		==Further Reading==

	"The Five Stages of Thinking" is a subsequent tool directly related to the Six Thinking Hats discussion, ideation and decision-making method, published by Edward De Bono in 1973. The Five Stages of Thinking was developed for the Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) Thinking Program' and further explores the strength of perceptive thinking and how thinking is a skill that can be developed. The Five Stages of Thinking provides a complementary analytical toolkit that correspond to the different thinking hats. For example, yellow hat thinking should use a tool called PMI, standing for plus, minus and interesting.		"The Five Stages of Thinking" is a subsequent tool directly related to the Six Thinking Hats discussion, ideation and decision-making method, published by Edward De Bono in 1973. The Five Stages of Thinking was developed for the Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) Thinking Program and further explores the strength of perceptive thinking and how thinking is a skill that can be developed. The Five Stages of Thinking provides a complementary analytical toolkit that correspond to the different thinking hats. For example, yellow hat thinking should use a tool called PMI, standing for plus, minus and interesting.

	==References==		==References==

Matthew Wells at 22:45, 28 February 2018

2018-02-28T22:45:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:45, 28 February 2018
Line 179:		Line 179:
	Whilst the Six Thinking Hats methodology has several limitations, the PMI and PRINCE2 standards offer no specific tool or technique to help facilitate ideation, brainstorming, problem solving and decision making around developing business cases, project charters or project management plans. Instead, the standards only identify and list the inputs and outputs required for most project management activities and fail to provide any examples of tools and techniques that may aid in this often lengthy process. Because of this, the PMI and PRINCE2 standards currently fail to take into account and ignore the multi-lens and often biased approach many stakeholders have during brainstorming and ideation, which are critical to developing business plans, charters and cases. The Six Thinking Hats method however is one such tool that would contribute towards and complement the current state of the PMI and PRINCE2 standards heavily, as it would provide an appropriate tool from which to properly facilitate structured and unbiased discussion, ideation and decision making.		Whilst the Six Thinking Hats methodology has several limitations, the PMI and PRINCE2 standards offer no specific tool or technique to help facilitate ideation, brainstorming, problem solving and decision making around developing business cases, project charters or project management plans. Instead, the standards only identify and list the inputs and outputs required for most project management activities and fail to provide any examples of tools and techniques that may aid in this often lengthy process. Because of this, the PMI and PRINCE2 standards currently fail to take into account and ignore the multi-lens and often biased approach many stakeholders have during brainstorming and ideation, which are critical to developing business plans, charters and cases. The Six Thinking Hats method however is one such tool that would contribute towards and complement the current state of the PMI and PRINCE2 standards heavily, as it would provide an appropriate tool from which to properly facilitate structured and unbiased discussion, ideation and decision making.

	Furthermore, other tools also exist that try to structure brainstorming and decision-making thinking during the establishment of project mandates and project overview statements (POS). One such example closely tied to the PRINCE2 model, however not mentioned within, is the ECPM Framework, which stands for Effective Complex Project Management. The ECPM framework method is comprised of the following components: definition of the problem or business opportunity, a divergent phase, an emergent phase and the convergent phase; and is an effective method because it systematically, robustly and transparently addresses each aspect of the idea within ~~the~~ group. An important concept underlying the ECPM framework that helps to promote group discussions without prejudice is that ideas can come from anywhere; "When a group member puts an idea on the table for consideration, they surrender ownership of the idea. It becomes the property of the entire group. It no longer makes any difference where the idea came from, and that should not even be part of any later discussions regarding the idea" (PRINCE2 - A New Brainstorming Model For Client Involvement, 2014).		Furthermore, other tools also exist that try to structure brainstorming and decision-making thinking during the establishment of project mandates and project overview statements (POS). One such example closely tied to the PRINCE2 model, however not mentioned within, is the ECPM Framework, which stands for Effective Complex Project Management. The ECPM framework method is comprised of the following components: definition of the problem or business opportunity, a divergent phase, an emergent phase and the convergent phase; and is an effective method because it systematically, robustly and transparently addresses each aspect of the idea within a group setting. An important concept underlying the ECPM framework that helps to promote group discussions without prejudice is that ideas can come from anywhere; "When a group member puts an idea on the table for consideration, they surrender ownership of the idea. It becomes the property of the entire group. It no longer makes any difference where the idea came from, and that should not even be part of any later discussions regarding the idea" (PRINCE2 - A New Brainstorming Model For Client Involvement, 2014).

	In light of the project management standards status quo, and the brainstorming techniques currently available to project managers, the Six Thinking Hat method and similar techniques contribute to the project management body of knowledge and its endeavour to ultimately ensure projects are successful. It would be useful to project managers in the future if such tools and techniques were more heavily referenced, explained and possibly embedded within the standards.		In light of the project management standards status quo, and the brainstorming techniques currently available to project managers, the Six Thinking Hat method and similar techniques contribute to the project management body of knowledge and its endeavour to ultimately ensure projects are successful. It would be useful to project managers in the future if such tools and techniques were more heavily referenced, explained and possibly embedded within the standards.

Matthew Wells at 22:40, 28 February 2018

2018-02-28T22:40:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:40, 28 February 2018
Line 15:		Line 15:
	The underlying principal of the Six Thinking Hats method is parallel thinking, a system where groups can discuss different points of view together and without interference from other types of thinking. De Bono believed that the brain could not think critically and make judgements efficiently and effectively because it was constantly analysing from multiple thinking modes and perspectives, simultaneously interpreting, judging, translating, forming, confirming and dismissing (De Bono, 1985). Similarly, the thinking hat method builds upon the theory that chemical balances inside the brain are different when thinking critically, creatively, positively and negatively; and that the brain is ineffective at looking through each lens simultaneously. De Bono believed that by creating a shared common lens for discussion by unbundling each thinking mode and addressing them in structured turns, an entire group can properly discuss all components of an issue effectively and efficiently, creating a transparent cooperative exploration. De Bono acknowledges that his method is not the natural way of thinking for some individuals, but that it enables groups to properly address and investigate all points of view and perspectives in depth and in parallel. In this way, the Six Think Hats method creates a practical method from which to conduct constructive thinking, thereby eliminating adversarial thinking, conflicts and drifting discussions.		The underlying principal of the Six Thinking Hats method is parallel thinking, a system where groups can discuss different points of view together and without interference from other types of thinking. De Bono believed that the brain could not think critically and make judgements efficiently and effectively because it was constantly analysing from multiple thinking modes and perspectives, simultaneously interpreting, judging, translating, forming, confirming and dismissing (De Bono, 1985). Similarly, the thinking hat method builds upon the theory that chemical balances inside the brain are different when thinking critically, creatively, positively and negatively; and that the brain is ineffective at looking through each lens simultaneously. De Bono believed that by creating a shared common lens for discussion by unbundling each thinking mode and addressing them in structured turns, an entire group can properly discuss all components of an issue effectively and efficiently, creating a transparent cooperative exploration. De Bono acknowledges that his method is not the natural way of thinking for some individuals, but that it enables groups to properly address and investigate all points of view and perspectives in depth and in parallel. In this way, the Six Think Hats method creates a practical method from which to conduct constructive thinking, thereby eliminating adversarial thinking, conflicts and drifting discussions.

	Similarly, the Six Thinking Hat method addresses the pitfalls of adversarial thinking, debate and conflicts within discussions, which can often lead to negative and unproductive work. By eliminating personal attacks and personal bias from ideation, brainstorming and discussions, by referring to responses as a 'particular type of thinking', (e.g. "That was some interesting red hat thinking"), a simple, effective and impersonal discussion technique is created.		Similarly, the Six Thinking Hat method addresses the pitfalls of adversarial thinking, debate and conflicts within discussions, which can often lead to negative and unproductive work. By eliminating personal attacks and personal bias from ideation, brainstorming and discussions, and by referring to responses as a 'particular type of thinking', (e.g. "That was some interesting red hat thinking"), a simple, effective and impersonal discussion technique is created.

	Finally, the Six Thinking Hat method acknowledges that participants of group discussions are unlikely to investigate and pursue topics, ideas and solutions that they do not instinctively like or agree with, leading towards sub-optimal ideation and decision making. The Six Thinking Hat method removes prejudice, personal opinion and tendencies from group discussions and decision making by ensuring that all members give responses and performances based on the particular colour of the hat they are wearing, responses they might not necessarily naturally give. By challenging the natural thinking mode of individuals through the different hats, discussion members can often find themselves challenged, persuaded and even convinced of ideas, topics and solutions that they would not naturally have decided themselves.		Finally, the Six Thinking Hat method acknowledges that participants of group discussions are unlikely to investigate and pursue topics, ideas and solutions that they do not instinctively like or agree with, leading towards sub-optimal ideation and decision making. The Six Thinking Hat method removes prejudice, personal opinion and tendencies from group discussions and decision making by ensuring that all members give responses and performances based on the particular colour of the hat they are wearing, responses they might not necessarily naturally give. By challenging the natural thinking mode of individuals through the different hats, discussion members can often find themselves challenged, persuaded and even convinced of ideas, topics and solutions that they would not naturally have decided themselves.

Matthew Wells at 22:35, 28 February 2018

2018-02-28T22:35:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:35, 28 February 2018
Line 3:		Line 3:
	The ''Six Thinking Hats'' is a group thinking exercise developed by Edward de Bono and was published in 1985. The thinking hats technique, born from the common phrase, 'putting on your thinking cap', is used to structure and plan thinking processes, promote lateral thinking and encourage exploration through brainstorming. It has a broad application across project, program and portfolio management as a facilitation technique used during brainstorming, ideation, conflict resolution, problem solving, and even meeting management.		The ''Six Thinking Hats'' is a group thinking exercise developed by Edward de Bono and was published in 1985. The thinking hats technique, born from the common phrase, 'putting on your thinking cap', is used to structure and plan thinking processes, promote lateral thinking and encourage exploration through brainstorming. It has a broad application across project, program and portfolio management as a facilitation technique used during brainstorming, ideation, conflict resolution, problem solving, and even meeting management.

	Six coloured hats, each representing a particular mode of thinking (for example: objective, subjective, positive, negative, internal, external), are rotated between during group discussions and meetings, enabling group members to explore these thinking modes in isolation and without influence from other thinking modes. The thinking hats method helps to streamline project, program and portfolio decision making by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of group brainstorming, ideation and discussions ~~meetings~~. In the context of project, program and portfolio management, effective brainstorming and subsequent decision making is a core competency and is essential at all levels of work. When proper brainstorming, problem solving, meeting management and conflict resolution is facilitated, and the correct tools and techniques are employed, stakeholders and project teams remain engaged, motivated and actively contribute to the success of a project.		Six coloured hats, each representing a particular mode of thinking (for example: objective, subjective, positive, negative, internal, external), are rotated between during group discussions and meetings, enabling group members to explore these thinking modes in isolation and without influence from other thinking modes. The thinking hats method helps to streamline project, program and portfolio decision making by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of group brainstorming, ideation and discussions. In the context of project, program and portfolio management, effective brainstorming and subsequent decision making is a core competency and is essential at all levels of work. When proper brainstorming, problem solving, meeting management and conflict resolution is facilitated, and the correct tools and techniques are employed, stakeholders and project teams remain engaged, motivated and actively contribute to the success of a project.

	The PMBOK Guide describes the need to develop project charters in order to formally recognise projects, which can arise from business needs, project scope descriptions and/or strategic plans (4.0, PMBOK, 2013). Similarly, PRINCE2 standards highlight that the establishment of a project is a direct response to a project mandate, arising form business needs, unsolved problems or business opportunities (4.3.2, PRINCE2, 2009). Before project charters or mandates can be established, the proper scoping of solutions, benefits and deliverables must take place first, which is where ineffective brainstorming, poor facilitation and improper management can lead projects towards the wrong goals as well as develop and pursue sub-optimal solutions. Project managers can often find it difficult to facilitate discussions between team members and stakeholders, as each group have their own natural ways of thinking, priorities and beliefs, and bringing these perspectives together in a constructive way can be very difficult and counter-productive.		The PMBOK Guide describes the need to develop project charters in order to formally recognise projects, which can arise from business needs, project scope descriptions and/or strategic plans (4.0, PMBOK, 2013). Similarly, PRINCE2 standards highlight that the establishment of a project is a direct response to a project mandate, arising form business needs, unsolved problems or business opportunities (4.3.2, PRINCE2, 2009). Before project charters or mandates can be established, the proper scoping of solutions, benefits and deliverables must take place first, which is where ineffective brainstorming, poor facilitation and improper management can lead projects towards the wrong goals as well as develop and pursue sub-optimal solutions. Project managers can often find it difficult to facilitate discussions between team members and stakeholders, as each group have their own natural ways of thinking, priorities and beliefs, and bringing these perspectives together in a constructive way can be very difficult and counter-productive.

Matthew Wells at 22:34, 28 February 2018

2018-02-28T22:34:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 28 February 2018
Line 133:		Line 133:
	[[File:StrategicPlanning.jpeg\|thumb\|right\|alt=A draft chart.\|Example: Strategic Planning Process Diagram]]		[[File:StrategicPlanning.jpeg\|thumb\|right\|alt=A draft chart.\|Example: Strategic Planning Process Diagram]]

	~~With~~ six clear and different modes ~~of thinking~~ established, distinct thinking strategies can then be applied to different stages or activities within project, program and portfolio management. Some examples of brainstorming and ideation examples set out within Dr De Bono's book include:		The Six Thinking Hats method can be applied to a diverse range of situations spanning from ideation, brainstorming, problem solving, meeting management to conflict resolution, however the most traditional applications are found within ideation and brainstorming. The traditional applications of this method are extremely useful to project managers as they can analyse business problems or customer needs with a methodology that systematically and rigorously explores all components of the problem or need.

			Furthermore, with six clear and different thinking modes established, distinct thinking strategies can then be applied to different stages or activities within project, program and portfolio management. Some examples of brainstorming and ideation examples set out originally within De Bono's book include:

	'''Initial Ideas''' – Blue, White, Green, Blue		'''Initial Ideas''' – Blue, White, Green, Blue

Matthew Wells at 22:24, 28 February 2018

2018-02-28T22:24:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:24, 28 February 2018
Line 177:		Line 177:
	Whilst the Six Thinking Hats methodology has several limitations, the PMI and PRINCE2 standards offer no specific tool or technique to help facilitate ideation, brainstorming, problem solving and decision making around developing business cases, project charters or project management plans. Instead, the standards only identify and list the inputs and outputs required for most project management activities and fail to provide any examples of tools and techniques that may aid in this often lengthy process. Because of this, the PMI and PRINCE2 standards currently fail to take into account and ignore the multi-lens and often biased approach many stakeholders have during brainstorming and ideation, which are critical to developing business plans, charters and cases. The Six Thinking Hats method however is one such tool that would contribute towards and complement the current state of the PMI and PRINCE2 standards heavily, as it would provide an appropriate tool from which to properly facilitate structured and unbiased discussion, ideation and decision making.		Whilst the Six Thinking Hats methodology has several limitations, the PMI and PRINCE2 standards offer no specific tool or technique to help facilitate ideation, brainstorming, problem solving and decision making around developing business cases, project charters or project management plans. Instead, the standards only identify and list the inputs and outputs required for most project management activities and fail to provide any examples of tools and techniques that may aid in this often lengthy process. Because of this, the PMI and PRINCE2 standards currently fail to take into account and ignore the multi-lens and often biased approach many stakeholders have during brainstorming and ideation, which are critical to developing business plans, charters and cases. The Six Thinking Hats method however is one such tool that would contribute towards and complement the current state of the PMI and PRINCE2 standards heavily, as it would provide an appropriate tool from which to properly facilitate structured and unbiased discussion, ideation and decision making.

	Furthermore, other tools also exist that try to structure thinking during the ~~evaluation~~ of ~~candidate projects~~ (2.1, ~~Project Portfolio Management~~, ~~2005) and during~~ the ~~pre-qualification of projects (4.3~~, Project ~~Portfolio~~ Management, ~~2005)~~, ~~that are widely accepted by~~ the ~~international project management community~~, ~~however are also not listed~~ within the ~~PMI or PRINCE2 standards. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) developed by Thomas L~~. ~~Saaty in~~ the ~~1970s theorised~~ that ~~"the human mind~~ is ~~innately capable of making difficult decisions when those decisions are properly structured and measured in a way~~ that ~~simplifies comparison~~" ~~and identified~~ the ~~need~~ for ~~an intuitive and improved decision-making process "when multiple objectives~~, ~~criteria~~, and ~~alternatives, existed and where~~ the ~~interests of multiple stakeholders were involved~~" (~~Saaty~~, ~~1996~~). ~~Saaty published a method describing a set~~ of ~~characteristics~~, brainstorming ~~steps~~, and ~~thinking axioms (structure, measure~~ and ~~synthesis) that~~ would ~~yield better brainstorming, ideation~~, ~~analyses of problems~~ and the ~~development of appropriate solutions~~.		Furthermore, other tools also exist that try to structure brainstorming and decision-making thinking during the establishment of project mandates and project overview statements (POS). One such example closely tied to the PRINCE2 model, however not mentioned within, is the ECPM Framework, which stands for Effective Complex Project Management. The ECPM framework method is comprised of the following components: definition of the problem or business opportunity, a divergent phase, an emergent phase and the convergent phase; and is an effective method because it systematically, robustly and transparently addresses each aspect of the idea within the group. An important concept underlying the ECPM framework that helps to promote group discussions without prejudice is that ideas can come from anywhere; "When a group member puts an idea on the table for consideration, they surrender ownership of the idea. It becomes the property of the entire group. It no longer makes any difference where the idea came from, and that should not even be part of any later discussions regarding the idea" (PRINCE2 - A New Brainstorming Model For Client Involvement, 2014).

			In light of the project management standards status quo, and the brainstorming techniques currently available to project managers, the Six Thinking Hat method and similar techniques contribute to the project management body of knowledge and its endeavour to ultimately ensure projects are successful. It would be useful to project managers in the future if such tools and techniques were more heavily referenced, explained and possibly embedded within the standards.

	==Modern Interpretations==		==Modern Interpretations==
Line 196:		Line 198:

	De Bono, Edward, 1985, Six Thinking Hats: An Essential Approach to Business Management, Little, Brown, & Company, USA		De Bono, Edward, 1985, Six Thinking Hats: An Essential Approach to Business Management, Little, Brown, & Company, USA

			Wysocki, Robert, Effective Complex Project Management: An Adaptive Agile Framework for Delivering Business Value, 2014, J. Ross Publishing, USA

	T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, Pittsburgh, RWS Publications, 1996		T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, Pittsburgh, RWS Publications, 1996
Line 204:		Line 208:

	Morrison, Jim, 2012, June 26, Spanx on Steroids: How Speedo Created the New Record-Breaking Swimsuit, Retrieved from: https://www.smithsonianmag.com		Morrison, Jim, 2012, June 26, Spanx on Steroids: How Speedo Created the New Record-Breaking Swimsuit, Retrieved from: https://www.smithsonianmag.com

			Wysocki, Robert, 2014, PRINCE2 - A New Brainstorming Model For Client Involvement, Retrieved from: www.projecttimes.com

	==Annotated Bibliography==		==Annotated Bibliography==
Line 218:		Line 224:

	Insights and Trends: Current Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Practices is a report published by PriceWaterhouseCoopers that synthesises responses from 1,524 project management respondents from over 38 countries, spanning the entire organisational hierarchy, regarding project management best practices and current usages. The report links project management success and failures to criteria set out in established project management frameworks and highlights current trends within project execution.		Insights and Trends: Current Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Practices is a report published by PriceWaterhouseCoopers that synthesises responses from 1,524 project management respondents from over 38 countries, spanning the entire organisational hierarchy, regarding project management best practices and current usages. The report links project management success and failures to criteria set out in established project management frameworks and highlights current trends within project execution.

	The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation published in 1996 is a brainstorming, ideation and decision making tool that aims to promote better project decision-making by properly by first analysing and ranking project features such as cost, benefits, risk, scenarios; secondly applying a redundant paired comparison to the ranked features and thirdly by fusing qualitative judgements and qualitative data from the project and alternatives with priorities. The method is widely accepted throughout the project management community and is considered a brainstorming and thinking technique.

Matthew Wells at 21:03, 28 February 2018

2018-02-28T21:03:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 28 February 2018
Line 177:		Line 177:
	Whilst the Six Thinking Hats methodology has several limitations, the PMI and PRINCE2 standards offer no specific tool or technique to help facilitate ideation, brainstorming, problem solving and decision making around developing business cases, project charters or project management plans. Instead, the standards only identify and list the inputs and outputs required for most project management activities and fail to provide any examples of tools and techniques that may aid in this often lengthy process. Because of this, the PMI and PRINCE2 standards currently fail to take into account and ignore the multi-lens and often biased approach many stakeholders have during brainstorming and ideation, which are critical to developing business plans, charters and cases. The Six Thinking Hats method however is one such tool that would contribute towards and complement the current state of the PMI and PRINCE2 standards heavily, as it would provide an appropriate tool from which to properly facilitate structured and unbiased discussion, ideation and decision making.		Whilst the Six Thinking Hats methodology has several limitations, the PMI and PRINCE2 standards offer no specific tool or technique to help facilitate ideation, brainstorming, problem solving and decision making around developing business cases, project charters or project management plans. Instead, the standards only identify and list the inputs and outputs required for most project management activities and fail to provide any examples of tools and techniques that may aid in this often lengthy process. Because of this, the PMI and PRINCE2 standards currently fail to take into account and ignore the multi-lens and often biased approach many stakeholders have during brainstorming and ideation, which are critical to developing business plans, charters and cases. The Six Thinking Hats method however is one such tool that would contribute towards and complement the current state of the PMI and PRINCE2 standards heavily, as it would provide an appropriate tool from which to properly facilitate structured and unbiased discussion, ideation and decision making.

	Furthermore, other tools also exist that try to structure thinking during the evaluation of candidate projects (2.1 Project Portfolio Management, 2005) and during the pre-qualification of projects (4.3 Project Portfolio Management, 2005), that are widely accepted by the international project management community, however are also not listed within the PMI or PRINCE2 standards. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s theorised that "the human mind is innately capable of making difficult decisions when those decisions are properly structured and measured in a way that simplifies comparison" and identified the need for an intuitive and improved decision-making process "when multiple objectives, criteria, and alternatives, existed and where the interests of multiple stakeholders were involved" (Saaty, 1996). Saaty published a method describing a set of characteristics, brainstorming steps, and thinking axioms (structure, measure and synthesis) that would yield better brainstorming, ideation, analyses of problems and the development of appropriate solutions.		Furthermore, other tools also exist that try to structure thinking during the evaluation of candidate projects (2.1, Project Portfolio Management, 2005) and during the pre-qualification of projects (4.3, Project Portfolio Management, 2005), that are widely accepted by the international project management community, however are also not listed within the PMI or PRINCE2 standards. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s theorised that "the human mind is innately capable of making difficult decisions when those decisions are properly structured and measured in a way that simplifies comparison" and identified the need for an intuitive and improved decision-making process "when multiple objectives, criteria, and alternatives, existed and where the interests of multiple stakeholders were involved" (Saaty, 1996). Saaty published a method describing a set of characteristics, brainstorming steps, and thinking axioms (structure, measure and synthesis) that would yield better brainstorming, ideation, analyses of problems and the development of appropriate solutions.

	==Modern Interpretations==		==Modern Interpretations==