Problem Solving & Quality · Solutions

Brainwriting 6-3-5

Six people each write three countermeasure ideas in five minutes, then pass the sheet on and build on what they read — many options, no dominant voice.

Time40 min
FormatTeam
StageSolutions

Brainwriting 6-3-5: what it is and why it works

Brainwriting 6-3-5 is a silent, written idea-generation method. Six participants each write three ideas on a shared grid in five minutes, then pass the sheet to their neighbor, who reads what is already there and adds three more, either new or built on the previous row. After six rounds, each sheet holds up to 18 ideas and the group has produced up to 108 in about half an hour of writing. In a problem-solving context, the question at the top of each sheet is not "what could we do?" but "how could we remove this verified root cause?", which keeps ideas anchored to the problem.

The method beats open brainstorming when a meeting is dominated by a few confident voices, when people are reluctant to propose half-formed ideas in front of their manager, or when participants speak different first languages. Writing in parallel removes production blocking, the time lost waiting for a turn to talk, and passing the sheets encourages people to combine and extend ideas instead of defending their own. It is a divergent tool: its output is volume and variety, which then needs converging tools such as a hierarchy-of-controls review, a weighted decision matrix or a Pugh comparison. When ideas keep hitting the same trade-off, TRIZ is the better next step.

What you need

A verified root cause, written as one clear sentence
Five to seven participants, including at least one person from outside the area
Six identical sheets with a three-column, six-row grid and the cause written at the top
A facilitator with a timer and a quiet room or a shared online template

What you get

Up to 108 written ideas, with the chain of how ideas built on each other
A clustered list with duplicates merged
A shortlist of five to eight ideas that act directly on the cause
Wider participation in the solution, which eases later implementation

When to use it

When the same two senior voices propose all the solutions in every meeting.

How to do it, step by step

Write the verified root cause at the top of six identical sheets, each with a grid of three columns and six rows.
Each participant writes three countermeasure ideas in the first row in five minutes, in silence.
Pass the sheets clockwise; each person reads the previous ideas and adds three new or improved ones.
After six rounds, spread the sheets out and mark duplicates and the ideas that attack the cause directly.
Shortlist five to eight ideas for the decision tools.

Worked example: Spillage at a conveyor transfer point in a copper mine

Illustrative scenario — figures are realistic but not from a real company.

At an open-pit copper mine, a transfer chute between two overland conveyors spilled around 4 tons of ore per shift, requiring manual cleanup under a moving conveyor after lockout. The team had verified the root cause: off-center loading onto the receiving belt, caused by the ore trajectory changing with belt speed and ore moisture. Past meetings had produced the same two suggestions every time: skirt boards and more cleanup crews.

The facilitator invited six people: two maintenance fitters, a process engineer, a shift supervisor, a belt-splicing contractor and a dust-control technician from another area.
Each sheet read: "How can we make ore land centered on the receiving belt at all speeds and moisture levels?" Six five-minute rounds followed in silence.
The group produced 91 ideas. Laying the sheets out, they found clusters around adjustable deflector plates, a rock box to absorb impact, a spoon-shaped chute, belt training idlers and moisture-based speed limits.
Duplicates were merged and ideas that only managed spillage after the fact, such as more cleanup, were set aside. Six ideas that acted on the trajectory went forward.

Result. The shortlist moved to a weighted decision matrix, where a redesigned curved chute with an adjustable deflector scored highest. The contractor's idea of using wear-plate inserts on the deflector came from round four, building on an earlier fitter's sketch. Participants noted that the quietest fitter wrote the idea the team finally adopted.

Open it in the FieldKit Problem Solving app → Get the Problem Solving template pack — join the waitlist

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Starting from a vague topic such as "improve the line" rather than a verified cause.Write the specific cause at the top of each sheet, phrased as a "how could we" question.
Letting participants talk or comment during the rounds.Keep the rounds silent and time-boxed; discussion happens only after all six rounds.
Treating the 108 ideas as the result and voting on them immediately.Cluster, merge duplicates and check each idea against the cause before moving to a decision tool.
Inviting only people from the same team and seniority level.Add at least one outsider, such as maintenance, lab, a supplier or a neighboring department, to widen the range of ideas.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between brainstorming and brainwriting?

Brainstorming generates ideas out loud in a group, one speaker at a time, which lets dominant voices steer the session and leaves others waiting. Brainwriting generates ideas in writing, everyone at once, and passes them around for others to build on. It usually yields more ideas per person and a wider spread of contributors, while still allowing ideas to cross-fertilize.

Can you do 6-3-5 with more or fewer than six people?

Yes. The numbers are a convention, not a rule. With four or five people, run as many rounds as there are participants, so each sheet passes everyone once. With eight or more, split into two groups working in parallel on the same question and merge the results. Keep the three ideas per round and the short time box, which create the useful pressure.

Does brainwriting work in a remote meeting?

It works well online. Create a shared spreadsheet or whiteboard with one grid per participant, and at each round ask people to move to the next grid. Keep cameras on, the timer visible and the chat closed during rounds. Online sessions also leave a clean written record, which makes clustering easier afterward.