-
01 · Welcome and Introduction
-
- Join this Course to access resources
-
-
02 · The Pieces and the Evidence
-
- Join this Course to access resources
-
-
03 · Constraints and Principles
-
- Join this Course to access resources
-
-
04 · Rebuilding the Process
-
- Join this Course to access resources
-
-
05 · Comparing and Testing Ideas
-
- Join this Course to access resources
-
-
06 · Facilitation and Scope
-
- Join this Course to access resources
-
-
07 · Business Process Cases
-
- Join this Course to access resources
-
-
08 · Capstone and Application
-
- Join this Course to access resources
-
-
-
09 · Participant workbook and resources
-
10 · Optional application coaching
Resource · Participant worksheets W1 to W11
The FIRST Framework
FIRST organizes the journey from a defined challenge to a supported change in everyday practice. Its five stages contain the course’s six reasoning steps: Frame, Decompose, Ground, Rebuild, Test and Learn. The map is iterative: learning can reopen the outcome, a claimed property, a constraint or a design choice.
| FIRST stage | Reasoning steps | Work and evidence to carry forward |
|---|---|---|
| F — Frame the Challenge | Frame | Define the recipient’s outcome, success criteria, boundary, decision owner and scope. Distinguish the required result from today’s delivery method. |
| I — Investigate Fundamentals | Decompose and Ground | Identify individual parts, their properties, required functions, interfaces and dependencies. Classify claims as evidence, assumptions, preferences or applicable requirements. Preserve sources, limits and open questions. |
| R — Reimagine Possibilities | Rebuild | Construct alternatives with different operating mechanisms. Explain how each uses relevant properties to preserve necessary functions and requirements. |
| S — Systematically Test and Iterate | Test and Learn | Choose a consequential uncertainty, a hypothesis, observations, guardrails and a decision rule. Compare results with the claim and revise the proposal or earlier reasoning. |
| T — Transform and Institutionalize | Apply learning and continue to review | When evidence and the authorized decision support implementation, assign ownership, confirm inputs and resources, update working instructions, build competence, handle exceptions and monitor outcomes. Record review and rollback conditions. If evidence is insufficient, continue investigation. |
How the reminders fit: FIRST is the overall route. FAFO—Frame and Assumptions, then Find Out—is Diggy’s short reminder: Frame, Decompose and Ground establish the basis; Rebuild, Test and Learn investigate possible changes. Use the specific step names while working. Memorizing the acronyms is not the learning objective.
Course map: Chapter 1 frames the challenge; Chapters 2–3 investigate fundamentals; Chapter 4 develops possibilities; Chapter 5 tests and iterates. Chapters 6–7 strengthen facilitation and application across the stages. Chapter 8 connects learning to implementation and continuing review.
FIRST Framework proposed by Deepak Chaudhury, Part III, 9 March 2025. The author presents it as his proposed methodology. The six-step mapping, exercises and implementation guidance here are Colabmo’s adaptation. This course does not present FIRST as an industry standard or imply author endorsement.
Participant workbook
Copy these prompts into a working document or print this page. Repeat records as needed; preserve the link from each conclusion to its evidence. These are working templates, not online response fields.
W1 Outcome and scope brief
Use in lessons 00 and 01. Describe the result before choosing a mechanism.
| Prompt | Your response |
|---|---|
| Process and recipient; whose need does this serve? | |
| Trigger, start event, end event and intended outcome | |
| Boundary, exclusions and outside dependencies | |
| Outcome quality, elapsed time, effort and risk measures; include definition, source and baseline status | |
| Proposed success criteria and who may accept them | |
| Decision owner, affected parties and evidence needed before design |
W2 Evidence and assumption ledger
Use in lesson 03. Repeat one record for each material claim.
| Prompt | Your response |
|---|---|
| Claim ID and one precise statement | |
| Type: observation, obligation, assumption, preference or derived conclusion | |
| Source, date, applicable population and limits | |
| Confidence and reason; what counterexample would matter? | |
| If false, which design or decision changes? | |
| Investigation or test, evidence owner and next review |
W3 Functions and dependencies
Use in lesson 02. Avoid department and software names on the first pass.
| Prompt | Your response |
|---|---|
| Outcome this function serves | |
| Function stated as a verb and object; why is it necessary? | |
| Input and its source; required quality or authority | |
| Decision or transformation and resulting output | |
| Logical dependencies and evidence for the required sequence | |
| Exception, recovery path and unresolved dependency | |
| Individual part and relevant property; distinguish the attribute from the part | ________________________________ |
| Property status: observed, assumed or required; source, scope or test | ________________________________ |
| Link from property to function; material dependency and failure consequence | ________________________________ |
W3 practice extension · Candle and functional fixedness
Complete after trying the lesson 02 prompt: What role did you first assign to the box? Which constraint was stated, and which did you assume? Describe the support, attachment and drip-catching functions. Choose one business artifact: what familiar label hides its necessary function? Propose another mechanism and identify one check it must pass.
W4 Constraint review
Use in lesson 04. Preserve legitimate authority while examining the mechanism.
| Prompt | Your response |
|---|---|
| Stated constraint and where it came from | |
| Scope, current applicability and source owner | |
| Underlying outcome or control purpose | |
| Classification: fixed for this exercise, changeable by named owner, unverified, or team choice | |
| Alternative mechanism and evidence of equivalent protection | |
| Who can authorize change; what remains conditional? |
W5 Principle and reasoning chain
Use in lesson 05. Repeat for each principle.
| Prompt | Your response |
|---|---|
| Principle ID, outcome and boundary | |
| Supported premise one and evidence reference | |
| Supported premise two and evidence reference | |
| Because these premises apply, any acceptable design must… | |
| Reasoning from premises to condition; what does not follow? | |
| Counterexample, exception, uncertain premise and resulting test |
W6 Alternative design
Use in lesson 06. Create at least three distinct mechanisms.
| Prompt | Your response |
|---|---|
| Option name and essential mechanism | |
| Functions and principles satisfied; reference W3 and W5 IDs | |
| Who acts, when, with what evidence and authority? | |
| Standard path and information handoffs | |
| Incomplete, disputed and urgent paths; recovery ownership | |
| New assumptions, dependencies and likely tradeoffs |
W6 practice extension · Brick and Apollo 13
Brick: record three possible uses, the property each relies on and one unverified assumption. Then choose a familiar business tool or form. Describe the function it serves and one other mechanism that could serve that function.
Apollo 13: distinguish the required function from the incompatible interface. For your business process, identify a similar handoff problem, two alternative mechanisms and one constraint each must preserve. Record the testable uncertainty for later work in W8. Historical analogy suggests questions; it does not validate your proposal.
W7 Option comparison
Use in lesson 07. Screen mandatory conditions before weighting preferences.
| Prompt | Your response |
|---|---|
| Mandatory conditions for all options and source references | |
| For each option: pass, fail or unproven with evidence | |
| Up to five comparison criteria, scale anchors and agreed weights | |
| Option scores with reasons and confidence, not numbers alone | |
| Sensitivity check; which weight or premise changes the choice? | |
| Preferred next investigation, rejected alternatives and reconsideration conditions |
W8 Experiment and learning plan
Use in lesson 08. Write before the test.
| Prompt | Your response |
|---|---|
| Design assumption and falsifiable hypothesis | |
| Population, eligibility, exclusions and sample rationale | |
| Comparison or replay method; possible confounders | |
| Measures, definitions, data sources and missing-data handling | |
| Quality and effort guardrails; stop conditions and recovery action | |
| Permissions, test owner, review point and decision owner | |
| Predefined rules for stop, revise or expand; limits on generalization | |
| After the test: observations, interpretation, changed belief and next action |
W9 Facilitation observation
Use in lesson 09. Record behavior rather than a personality judgment.
| Prompt | Your response |
|---|---|
| Claim or conventional-thinking signal heard | |
| Facilitator’s exact intervention | |
| Did it ask for an outcome, premise, source, inference or test? | |
| Who contributed and whose relevant perspective was missing? | |
| Did the facilitator leave solution ownership with the SMEs? | |
| What changed in the group’s reasoning and what intervention would you try next? |
W10 Decision and scope change record
Use in lesson 10 and the capstone. Transfer commitments to the existing task system.
| Prompt | Your response |
|---|---|
| Decision required and accountable owner | |
| Current boundary and proposed change | |
| Why the issue matters; impact of inclusion, exclusion or delay | |
| Evidence, dependencies, options and tradeoffs | |
| Decision, rationale, conditions and unresolved disagreements | |
| Action owner, next review and link to the existing task record |
W11 Assessment and personal transferApplication planning: from a test to everyday work
Use your decision packet to answer these prompts. A further test is a valid next decision when evidence is insufficient.
Prompt Your record What does the evidence justify now? What remains uncertain? Evidence, limits and next decision: Who owns the decision and implementation? Names, authority and responsibilities: What must be ready before a bounded implementation? Inputs, resources, skills, instructions and exceptions: How will you check outcomes and respond? Measure, comparison, review date, owner and revise/rollback conditions:
This transfer-planning prompt supports reflection and coaching. It does not add a scored question or change the course completion threshold.
Application planning: from a test to everyday work
Use your decision packet to answer these prompts. A further test is a valid next decision when evidence is insufficient.
| Prompt | Your record |
|---|---|
| What does the evidence justify now? What remains uncertain? | Evidence, limits and next decision: |
| Who owns the decision and implementation? | Names, authority and responsibilities: |
| What must be ready before a bounded implementation? | Inputs, resources, skills, instructions and exceptions: |
| How will you check outcomes and respond? | Measure, comparison, review date, owner and revise/rollback conditions: |
This transfer-planning prompt supports reflection and coaching. It does not add a scored question or change the course completion threshold.
FAFO reflection: Which finding changed your frame or assumptions? Trace it through the relevant six-step outputs and identify your next decision.
Use in lesson 14 and coaching.
| Prompt | Your response |
|---|---|
| Knowledge-check score and concepts to revisit | |
| Capstone dimension scores and specific supporting evidence | |
| Required revisions and reviewer feedback | |
| I previously assumed…; the challenge or evidence was… | |
| I now propose…; I still need to learn… | |
| Real process for transfer, process owner and first evidence review |
BrightPath Advisory: does the client need a meeting?
Fictional teaching case. BrightPath helps team leaders decide how to develop a workplace skill. Every client currently books a 45-minute video consultation before receiving guidance. The sponsor asks for a faster booking system. No client performance or achieved benefit is claimed.
Candidate outcome: the client receives relevant guidance, understands its limits and can identify an appropriate next step for the stated learning need. Validate the outcome with users. A completed meeting or sent email does not establish it.
Supplied case conditions
- Represent guidance as applicable only when its material basis and uncertainties are identified. A conditional answer, clarification or referral is permitted.
- Use client information only for the agreed advisory purpose; do not expose one client's information to another client.
- A person with relevant competence owns advice and unresolved clarification. Do not claim expertise beyond its established scope.
- The team can redesign intake, channel, scheduling and clarification. It cannot promise additional expertise or a new response-time guarantee without the service owner's decision.
These are invented conditions for this exercise. The case supplies no population demand rate, proven channel preference, target improvement or pilot result. Missing evidence stays visible.
Parts and properties
| Part | Relevant properties | Function | Evidence or check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Client question | Clarity, ambiguity, urgency | Understand the intended decision | Original question; client restatement |
| Supporting context | Relevance, accuracy, freshness | Establish applicability | Source/date; confirm material gaps |
| Adviser capability | Competence, scope, limits | Interpret and justify guidance | Relevant work samples; peer review |
| Communication channel | Access, privacy, clarification | Exchange enough meaning | Realistic user trial; assisted path |
| Recommendation | Fit, rationale, actionability | Support an informed next step | Review and client explanation |
| Follow-up commitment | Owner, trigger, completion | Recover from uncertainty or change | Recorded commitment and follow-through |
Label each property observed, assumed or required. Properties are attributes, not smaller physical parts. For people, examine relevant capabilities and interactions. Reconnect the parts and explain the dependencies.
A complete evidence-to-design chain
- Part and property: recommendation; its fit to the client's situation can be explained.
- Basis: the agreed case outcome requires usable guidance. This supports a bounded requirement; it does not prove the present advice is suitable.
- Function: establish context, formulate guidance and expose uncertainties that could change it.
- Principle: before representing guidance as applicable, identify its material context and uncertainty; clarify, qualify or refer where necessary.
- Alternatives: a live consultation, asynchronous expert review, or guided self-service for an evidenced class of recurring needs with escalation.
- Test: examine context, wrong fit, understanding and total clarification effort in representative cases/users.
“Clients need guidance, therefore every client needs a meeting” does not establish necessity. It imports a mechanism into the conclusion.
Complete the next chain · 5 minutes
Given part: communication channel. Supply property, status, evidence/check, function, bounded principle, two mechanisms, dependency and exception. Write before opening the model. Then complete an independent row for recommendation or follow-up commitment.
Illustrative reasoning, after your attempt
Required property: usable by the intended client. Its requirement follows from the outcome; whether a channel has that property requires a realistic trial. Function: exchange enough meaning to clarify a material gap. Principle: provide a usable clarification path before representing the answer as applicable. Written exchange and a short conversation are alternatives. A client unable to use either needs an investigated assisted route or a clear referral; do not silently close the case. Other supported answers are acceptable.
Compare service mechanisms · 5 minutes
| Mechanism | Potential fit | Uncertainty or failure |
|---|---|---|
| Live consultation with preparation | Interactive clarification of ambiguous needs | Attendance/access; conversation may still end without an actionable answer |
| Asynchronous expert response | Review without simultaneous availability | Insufficient context, repeated exchanges or misunderstood advice |
| Guided self-service with escalation | Recurring needs within an evidenced applicability boundary | Wrong matching or a user who cannot recognize the need for help |
Walk a clear request, an ambiguous request and a client unable to use the default channel through each. Explain the owner, evidence, exception and recovery. A meeting bundles functions; preserve the necessary functions while testing the delivery mechanism. Do not assume a digital or hybrid route is best.
Capacity and the whole service · 2 minutes
Simplified fictional assumptions: 12 arrivals/day, capacity for 10 completions/day, constant rates, available work and no other inflows/outflows. Backlog grows by 2/day: from zero to 10 after five days. Faster routing alone cannot remove the mismatch.
If completions rise to 12/day, growth stops under those assumptions; an existing backlog does not disappear. Identify what would invalidate the calculation: changing volume, case complexity, absence, rework or abandoned cases. State what you would measure. Include client effort as well as staff effort when assessing a proposed change.
BrightPath evidence update · 7 minutes
Record your initial option and decisive assumption in W8 before opening the card.
Open after recording your initial recommendation
Invented observations: 3 of 6 deliberately selected users could not express their need adequately through the written prompt. Two of those three could do so in a short conversation. No other results are supplied.
These observations describe those six users; they do not establish a population failure rate or a winning channel. Revise your premise and applicability boundary. Propose a discriminating next test. A better prompt, assisted route, conversation, different combination or further investigation may be defensible.
Measure first request to usable next step, adviser effort, client effort including clarification, unsuitable advice and recontact due to misunderstanding. Ask the client to explain the next step and when it would not apply. Include unresolved and abandoned cases. Set decision rules and sample rationale before the next test; no improvement claim is supplied.
Three formative service checks · 6 minutes
Answer before opening feedback. These checks are unscored practice and do not change the ten-question completion rule.
F1 · Advice was emailed yesterday. What remains unproven?
Feedback after your attempt
Delivery alone does not establish fit, understanding or a usable next step. Name the missing outcome and an evidence check, such as the client explaining the intended action and its limits.
F2 · The fishbone has six branches and the fifth Why names a cause. What have we established?
Feedback after your attempt
Organized hypotheses. Neither the diagram nor the number of questions proves causation. Name a competing explanation and a record, observation or test that could distinguish it.
F3 · Propose two mechanisms for useful guidance. Which property must both preserve, and what result would change your choice?
Feedback after your attempt
Use functionally different mechanisms, justify a property through the outcome, and identify a falsifiable condition. A conversation and asynchronous review may qualify; two software brands alone do not. No single platform or channel is required.
W3 independent application
| Part | Property / status | Evidence or check | Function and principle | Mechanisms, dependency and exception |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ________________ | ________________ | ________________ | ________________ | ________________ |
| ________________ | ________________ | ________________ | ________________ | ________________ |
| ________________ | ________________ | ________________ | ________________ | ________________ |
| ________________ | ________________ | ________________ | ________________ | ________________ |
Carry at least two justified part/property links into the capstone. Use W6 and W8 for the BrightPath alternatives and revision. Keep the initial recommendation so the effect of new evidence remains visible.
W11 delayed transfer check
At a later coaching review, reconstruct one reasoning chain from memory using a different real process. Then compare it with your earlier packet. Explain one premise that changed and what evidence supports the change.
Chapter 3 BrightPath connection
W5: identify the recommendation’s required property, derive a bounded principle, name its case basis and test it against two mechanisms. Record a dependency, an acceptable exception and its owner.
My reasoning: ______________________________________________________
Evidence or unresolved question: _____________________________________
Owner and next decision: _____________________________________________
Chapter 6 BrightPath connection
W9: role-play the meeting/trust claim. Record the claim, a neutral question, evidence or gap, missing perspective, investigation owner and decision that remains conditional. Identify any promise outside team authority.
My reasoning: ______________________________________________________
Evidence or unresolved question: _____________________________________
Owner and next decision: _____________________________________________
Chapter 8 BrightPath connection
W11: record initial belief, evidence update, revised claim and next test. Then transfer one parts/properties/function/principle chain to a different service. Do not invent BrightPath rollout results.
My reasoning: ______________________________________________________
Evidence or unresolved question: _____________________________________
Owner and next decision: _____________________________________________
W2A: parts, properties and causes
Allow 15 minutes. Choose one bounded process problem, or use the fictional delayed-activation example. An unsupported cause remains a hypothesis.
1. Parts and properties · 3 minutes
| Individual part | Relevant property | Function it supports | Evidence / dependency |
|---|---|---|---|
| ________________ | ________________ | ________________ | ________________ |
| ________________ | ________________ | ________________ | ________________ |
| ________________ | ________________ | ________________ | ________________ |
| ________________ | ________________ | ________________ | ________________ |
2. Fishbone breadth · 4 minutes
Define the effect and its measurement boundary. Draw categories that fit the work. Add possible causes, including at least one alternative to your first explanation. Suggested prompts: information, workflow, roles, systems, rules, demand.
Effect: __________________________________________________
3. 5 Whys depth · 4 minutes
| Question / possible explanation | Evidence needed | Alternative explanation |
|---|---|---|
| ________________________ | ________________________ | ________________________ |
| ________________________ | ________________________ | ________________________ |
| ________________________ | ________________________ | ________________________ |
| ________________________ | ________________________ | ________________________ |
| ________________________ | ________________________ | ________________________ |
Add or stop questioning as the reasoning requires. Five rows are a convenience, not proof of one root cause.
4. FPT redesign · 4 minutes
Necessary function: ________________________________________
Properties that must be preserved: ___________________________
Mechanism A: __________________ Mechanism B: __________________
Highest-consequence uncertain claim: _________________________
Next check, owner and review date: ____________________________
Facilitator debrief
Ask which part and property mattered, what evidence supports the proposed causal link, and which dependency a new design must preserve. Challenge an unsupported fifth answer. Acknowledge a sound investigation plan when evidence is unavailable. Do not require one preferred fishbone or force every group to ask exactly five questions.
Look for: distinct parts and properties; a property-to-function link; visible dependencies; hypotheses labeled clearly; evidence checks; two mechanisms that differ in how they achieve the function. This supplement develops the existing evidence-ledger and functional-model skills. It does not change the capstone scoring threshold.
Choose a supporting method
Use part of the existing discussion to choose one unresolved question. Name a method you already use, the output it would produce, the evidence still needed and what it cannot establish. A direct observation may be enough. Use the supporting-method reference table.
Example: a BrightPath fishbone organizes hypotheses about incomplete questions; observing users and checking their context is still needed to investigate those hypotheses. A diagram alone does not prove a cause.
Two-way check: Explain how your chosen tool helps the investigation, and how FPT changes the way you frame or use that tool. For FMEA, compare a failure of today’s method with failure of the required function. For RCA, distinguish a supported causal finding from a proposed future design. Identify one inherited assumption to revisit. Worked FMEA and RCA examples.
There are no comments for now.