forum

Seven Session Types for Every Innovation Need

The right conversation structure makes all the difference. Choose the session type that matches your current goals.

Quick Comparison

Session Type Goal Duration Best For
Interview Extract knowledge 30-60 min Starting new domain
Ideation Generate ideas 1-2 hrs Need many directions
Innovation Breakthrough concepts 2-4 hrs Patent-worthy novelty
Consolidation Synthesize threads 1 hr Multiple discussions
Refinement Sharpen precision 30-90 min Draft exists
Review Positive feedback 30-60 min Confidence boost
Critique Stress-test 30-90 min Pre-filing audit
record_voice_over

Interview (Q&A)

Extract deep, domain-specific knowledge from an expert

When to Use

  • • Beginning of a new project or domain exploration
  • • Need expert perspective on a specific challenge
  • • Gathering context before deeper innovation work

Typical Flow

  1. 1. Introduction & context (what problem we're addressing)
  2. 2. Expert Q&A (pre-selected question bank + emergent)
  3. 3. Capture insights, quotes, analogies
  4. 4. Summarize key takeaways

Outputs

  • → Insight log with key learnings
  • → Expert Q&A transcript
  • → Domain analogies and cross-industry insights
  • → Constraints and considerations document

Example Prompt

"What are the top 3 challenges you see in this domain, and how do innovators usually overcome them?"

Works Well With

JTBD Systems Thinking Wardley Mapping
lightbulb

Ideation (Brainstorm & Test)

Generate a broad set of ideas and test them quickly

When to Use

  • • Problem is defined, need many solution directions
  • • Exploring the solution space broadly
  • • Want to generate patent embodiments and variants

Typical Flow

  1. 1. Define problem & user needs
  2. 2. Diverge: brainstorm ideas (SCAMPER, 6-3-5, etc.)
  3. 3. Converge: cluster & select promising directions
  4. 4. Quick validation through expert feedback

Outputs

  • → Idea clusters organized by theme
  • → Embodiment matrix (solution variants)
  • → SCAMPER variants document
  • → Top 3-5 promising directions with rationale

Example Prompt

"Generate 10 variants of this solution using SCAMPER (Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to use, Eliminate, Reverse)."

Works Well With

SCAMPER Design Thinking Morphological Analysis
rocket_launch

Innovation (Design Beyond State of Art)

Push beyond current solutions with novel, patentable concepts

When to Use

  • • Need breakthrough differentiation from competitors
  • • Filing patents and need non-obvious claims
  • • Seeking competitive advantage through IP

Typical Flow

  1. 1. Frame opportunity space (problem + prior art/market)
  2. 2. Generate breakthrough concepts (cross-domain, analogies)
  3. 3. Build concept sketches / claim hooks
  4. 4. Evaluate novelty & feasibility with examiners/advisors

Outputs

  • → Concept sketches with technical details
  • → Draft claims (independent and dependent)
  • → Novelty map vs. prior art
  • → Prior art comparison document

Example Prompt

"Design a solution that would leapfrog current prior art by at least 2 non-trivial deltas."

Works Well With

TRIZ C-K Theory Blue Ocean
hub

Consolidation (Prepare to Launch)

Synthesize discussion outputs and shape a shared direction

When to Use

  • • After multiple ideation or innovation rounds
  • • Before launching crew workflow or patent drafting
  • • Need to align on single direction from many options

Typical Flow

  1. 1. Recap key threads & divergent perspectives
  2. 2. Identify common ground & disagreements
  3. 3. Select focus area(s) for next sprint
  4. 4. Assign roles / outputs needed for launch

Outputs

  • → Decision log with rationale
  • → Focus area brief (1-2 pages)
  • → Role assignments for crew members
  • → Crew charter with goals and timeline

Example Prompt

"List the most promising 2-3 directions and the unresolved risks for each."

Works Well With

OST RICE/ICE OKRs
tune

Refinement (Sharpen Focus)

Improve precision of ideas, claims, or strategies

When to Use

  • • Draft exists but lacks clarity or precision
  • • Claims are too broad or ambiguous
  • • Figures or diagrams need clarification

Typical Flow

  1. 1. Pinpoint ambiguity or over-breadth
  2. 2. Clarify language, scope, intent
  3. 3. Strengthen weak points (claims, spec, figures)
  4. 4. Produce refined draft/plan

Outputs

  • → Red-lined claims/specifications
  • → Clarified figures with annotations
  • → Tightened language throughout document
  • → Updated drafts ready for next review

Example Prompt

"Rewrite this claim to maximize clarity and enforceability."

Works Well With

QFD DMAIC Claim Charting
thumb_up

Review (Positive Feedback)

Provide constructive, supportive feedback for improvement

When to Use

  • • Need confidence boost before filing or pitching
  • • Identify strengths to emphasize in applications
  • • Mentor-style guidance and encouragement

Typical Flow

  1. 1. Highlight strengths & innovations
  2. 2. Identify promising directions to expand
  3. 3. Suggest incremental improvements
  4. 4. Endorse readiness for next step if applicable

Outputs

  • → Strengths summary document
  • → Expansion recommendations
  • → Green-light decision or readiness assessment
  • → Next-step recommendations

Example Prompt

"What are the strongest aspects of this draft? Which features could be emphasized more?"

Works Well With

TRL Assessment Value Prop Design Portfolio Matrix
gavel

Critique (Negative Feedback)

Provide rigorous, adversarial feedback to expose weaknesses

When to Use

  • • Before filing to find holes and weaknesses
  • • Competitive analysis and freedom-to-operate
  • • Stress-testing assumptions before investment

Typical Flow

  1. 1. Stress-test assumptions (novelty, enforceability, feasibility)
  2. 2. Identify vulnerabilities and likely objections
  3. 3. Propose alternatives or tougher standards
  4. 4. Decide: repair, pivot, or abandon

Outputs

  • → Risk log with severity ratings
  • → Attack scenarios (examiner, competitor)
  • → Counter-measures and design-around options
  • → Pivot recommendations if needed

Example Prompt

"If you were an examiner or competitor, how would you attack this claim or application?"

Works Well With

FMEA STPA FTO Analysis

How Sessions Map to Design Thinking

favorite

Empathize

• Interview

• Ideation (start)

assignment

Define

• Consolidation

• Refinement

lightbulb

Ideate

• Ideation

• Innovation

build

Prototype

• Innovation

• Refinement

science

Test

• Review

• Critique

Session Sequences That Work

Startup IP Sprint

1. Interview → Extract domain knowledge

2. Ideation → Generate solution variants

3. Innovation → Develop patentable claims

4. Review → Validate strengths

5. Consolidation → Prepare for filing

Academic Research

1. Interview → Literature review insights

2. Innovation → Novel approaches

3. Critique → Peer review simulation

4. Refinement → Strengthen methodology

5. Review → Publication readiness

Corporate Portfolio

1. Ideation → Multiple concept threads

2. Consolidation → Portfolio strategy

3. Innovation (3x parallel) → Deep dives

4. Review → Portfolio alignment

Pre-Filing Audit

1. Review → Identify strengths

2. Critique → Find vulnerabilities

3. Refinement → Fix weaknesses

4. Review → Final readiness check

Choose Your Session Type

Configure your innovation session with the right session type, framework, and focus area

Configure a Session Explore Frameworks