Back to Details

tool-note-and-vote

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese
<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 -->
<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 -->

Note-and-Vote

Note-and-Vote

Run a structured group decision in 20-30 minutes. Silent contribution surfaces independent thinking before group dynamics narrow the option space; explicit Decider supervote closes the choice. Produces a written audit trail of the decision and the alternatives considered.
在20-30分钟内完成结构化群体决策。静默贡献能在群体动态收窄选项范围前，展现独立思考；明确的Decider超级投票则敲定最终选择。该方法会生成一份包含决策过程及备选方案的书面审计记录。

When to Use

适用场景

  • A small team (3-10 people) needs to make a fast decision with diverse input.
  • Groupthink, status bias, or loudest-voice dominance is a real risk.
  • A workshop or meeting moment demands silent ideation before open discussion.
  • The decision needs an audit trail (what was considered, why the chosen option won).
  • Decision authority is clear (a Decider exists and is in the room or available).
  • Used heavily across Foundation Sprint and Design Sprint at decision moments.
  • 小型团队（3-10人）需要结合多元意见快速做出决策。
  • 存在群体思维、地位偏见或“声音最大者主导”的实际风险。
  • 工作坊或会议环节要求先进行静默构思，再开展公开讨论。
  • 决策需要审计记录（包括考量过哪些选项、选中选项胜出的原因）。
  • 决策权限清晰（存在Decider且其在场或可参与）。
  • 在Foundation Sprint和Design Sprint的决策环节被大量使用。

When NOT to Use

不适用场景

  • A single person owns the decision and just needs to make it. Use direct judgment.
  • Consensus has already emerged organically. The voting overhead adds friction without value.
  • The decision is high-stakes enough to warrant longer deliberation (multi-day investigation, written proposals, formal review). Note-and-Vote is a 25-minute tool, not a governance process.
  • No Decider is available and the team has no authority to close the decision themselves. Defer until a Decider can attend.
  • 单个人员拥有决策权且只需自行做出决定。此时应直接使用判断法。
  • 共识已自然形成。投票流程会徒增摩擦，毫无价值。
  • 决策风险极高，需要更长时间的审议（多日调研、书面提案、正式评审）。Note-and-Vote是一款25分钟工具，而非治理流程。
  • 无Decider可用，且团队自身无权敲定决策。应推迟至Decider能参与时再进行。

The Five-Step Protocol

五步流程

text
1. Frame the question (1-2 min)
2. Silent ideation (3-7 min, depending on complexity)
3. Silent voting (2-5 min, multi-vote or single-vote)
4. Brief discussion of the vote distribution (5-10 min)
5. Decider supervote (1 min)
Total: 12-25 minutes depending on time allocations. Default is 25 minutes for a non-trivial decision.
text
1. Frame the question (1-2 min)
2. Silent ideation (3-7 min, depending on complexity)
3. Silent voting (2-5 min, multi-vote or single-vote)
4. Brief discussion of the vote distribution (5-10 min)
5. Decider supervote (1 min)
总时长：12-25分钟，具体取决于各环节时间分配。非简单决策默认时长为25分钟。

Step 1: Frame the question

步骤1：明确决策问题

Write the decision question on the board, one sentence, unambiguous. Examples:
  • "Which target customer segment should our Foundation Sprint commit to for Day 1?"
  • "Which solution sketch goes forward into Wednesday's storyboard?"
  • "Which sprint question should be the primary scorecard row on Friday?"
Bad framings to avoid:
  • Compound questions ("which customer AND problem")
  • Yes/no questions (use a different tool)
  • Open exploration ("what should we do?")
将决策问题写在白板上，用一句清晰无歧义的话表述。示例：
  • "我们的Foundation Sprint在第1天应聚焦哪个目标客户群体？"
  • "哪个解决方案草图将进入周三的故事板环节？"
  • "周五的首要评分卡维度应对应哪个冲刺问题？"
需避免的错误表述：
  • 复合问题（如“哪个客户群体以及对应的问题”）
  • 是非题（应使用其他工具）
  • 开放式探索（如“我们应该做什么？”）

Step 2: Silent ideation

步骤2：静默构思

Every participant contributes options silently and independently. Sticky notes on a wall, cells in a Miro board, or rows in a shared doc. No talking. No reading others' contributions until the timer ends.
The facilitator MUST enforce silence. Verbal contribution defeats the purpose.
每位参与者独立、静默地提出备选方案。可使用墙上的便利贴、Miro白板中的单元格或共享文档中的行。期间禁止交谈，计时器结束前不得查看他人的贡献内容。
主持人必须严格维持静默状态。口头发言会违背该环节的初衷。

Step 3: Silent voting

步骤3：静默投票

Display all contributions anonymously (or with attribution if the team has agreed). Each participant gets N votes (often 2-3 for a multi-vote round, 1 for a single-vote tiebreaker). Vote silently using dots, stickers, reactions, or numbers. No discussion during voting.
匿名展示所有贡献内容（若团队同意，也可标注贡献者）。每位参与者拥有N票（多轮投票通常为2-3票，单轮决胜投票为1票）。通过打点、贴纸、表情反应或数字方式静默投票。投票期间禁止讨论。

Step 4: Brief discussion

步骤4：简短讨论

Surface the top 2-3 vote-getters. Each person who voted for the top options briefly explains why. The facilitator times this (5-10 minutes max). If discussion expands beyond the top options, the facilitator pulls it back.
This is the place where the team can detect surprises ("I didn't realize we were aligned on X") or unsurprises ("we're split between A and B for known reasons"). It is not the place to relitigate the framing.
选出得票前2-3的选项。每位投票给这些高票选项的成员简要说明投票理由。主持人需控制时长（最多5-10分钟）。若讨论超出高票选项范围，主持人需将话题拉回。
此环节可让团队发现意外情况（如“我之前没意识到我们在X问题上意见一致”）或预期之内的分歧（如“我们在A和B之间的分歧原因已知”）。但该环节不应重新审议决策问题的表述。

Step 5: Decider supervote

步骤5：Decider超级投票

The Decider names the chosen option. The Decider may pick the top vote-getter (most common), pick a different option with stated rationale (sometimes), or call for a re-vote after the discussion (rare).
The supervote is the decision. Record it explicitly in the artifact. Do not let the supervote blur into continued discussion; the team needs to see the close.
Decider宣布最终选中的选项。Decider通常会选择得票最高的选项，有时也会选择其他选项并说明理由，极少数情况下会在讨论后要求重新投票。
超级投票即为最终决策。需在成果文档中明确记录。不得让超级投票演变为持续讨论；团队需要看到决策的敲定结果。

Output Structure

输出结构

The skill produces a single bundled artifact containing:
  1. The decision question (verbatim)
  2. The silent ideation board (all contributions, timestamped, attribution per team agreement)
  3. The vote summary (counts per option, voters per option if attribution agreed)
  4. Discussion notes (brief, the rationale that surfaced)
  5. The decision record (chosen option + Decider name + Decider rationale if non-obvious)
See 
references/TEMPLATE.md
for the canonical structure and 
references/EXAMPLE.md
for a worked example using the Brainshelf book-catalog Foundation Sprint thread.
该方法生成的统一成果文档包含以下内容：
  1. 决策问题（原文表述）
  2. 静默构思看板（所有贡献内容，带时间戳，按团队约定标注贡献者）
  3. 投票汇总（各选项得票数，若团队同意则标注投票者）
  4. 讨论记录（简要记录浮现的理由）
  5. 决策记录（选中选项 + Decider姓名 + 若理由不明显则需标注Decider的决策依据）
标准结构可参考
references/TEMPLATE.md
，使用Brainshelf图书目录Foundation Sprint线程的示例可参考
references/EXAMPLE.md
。

Common Pitfalls

常见误区

  • Skipping silent ideation. "Let's just discuss it" defeats the protocol. The team produces what they would have produced without the tool.
  • Skipping Decider supervote. Consensus drift. The discussion ends without a recorded decision.
  • Long discussion phase. Five-minute discussions become twenty-minute debates. The facilitator must time-box and pull back.
  • Compound or vague framing. "What should we do about X?" is not a decidable question. Reframe before invoking.
  • Voting without seeing the contributions. If contributions are revealed during ideation, the voting is anchored to the first idea seen. Enforce silence.
  • Treating the Decider's choice as advisory. The supervote is the decision; if the Decider does not have authority, the wrong person is in the Decider seat.
  • 跳过静默构思：“我们直接讨论吧”会违背该流程的初衷。团队最终产出的结果与不使用该工具时无异。
  • 跳过Decider超级投票：导致共识模糊，讨论结束后无记录在案的决策。
  • 讨论环节超时：5分钟的讨论演变为20分钟的辩论。主持人必须严格控制时长并及时拉回话题。
  • 决策问题表述复杂或模糊：“我们应该如何处理X？”并非可决策的问题。使用该工具前需重新表述问题。
  • 未查看所有贡献内容就投票：若在构思过程中就展示贡献内容，投票会受最先看到的想法影响。需严格维持静默状态。
  • 将Decider的选择视为建议：超级投票即为最终决策；若Decider无决策权，则说明选任的Decider不合适。

Decider Role

Decider角色

The Decider has three responsibilities in Note-and-Vote:
  1. Frame the question (or approve the facilitator's framing) before silent ideation begins.
  2. Listen during discussion without dominating. The discussion's purpose is to surface what the silent vote could not.
  3. Supervote with explicit rationale when the supervote diverges from the team's top choice.
A Decider who consistently rubber-stamps the team's top vote is not adding value. A Decider who consistently overrides without rationale is not building trust. Both are signals the wrong person is in the seat.
在Note-and-Vote流程中，Decider承担三项职责：
  1. 明确决策问题（或在静默构思开始前批准主持人的问题表述）。
  2. 在讨论环节倾听，不主导讨论。讨论的目的是展现静默投票无法体现的信息。
  3. 进行超级投票，若与团队高票选项不同，需明确说明理由。
总是直接批准团队高票选项的Decider无法创造价值；总是无理由推翻团队选择的Decider则无法建立信任。这两种情况都说明Decider选任不当。

Canonical Source

权威来源

Character Capital publishes the canonical Note-and-Vote guide at https://www.character.vc/guide/note-and-vote. Knapp and Zeratsky describe Note-and-Vote variants in both Sprint (Design Sprint context) and Click (Foundation Sprint context).
This pm-skills implementation follows the Character protocol with the Five-Step structure named explicitly.
Character Capital发布了Note-and-Vote的官方指南，网址为https://www.character.vc/guide/note-and-vote。Knapp和Zeratsky在《Sprint》（Design Sprint场景）及《Click》（Foundation Sprint场景）两本书中都介绍了Note-and-Vote的变体。
本次pm-skills的实现遵循Character的流程，明确命名了五步结构。

Cross-Family Usage

跨场景使用

tool-note-and-vote
is a standalone tool, not a member of any sprint family. It is invoked many times across both 
foundation-sprint-skills
and 
design-sprint-skills
family members at decision moments. SKILL.md files in those families reference 
tool-note-and-vote
inline rather than embedding the protocol.
The skill is also useable outside sprint contexts: any participatory decision in a meeting, planning session, or workshop can invoke it.
tool-note-and-vote
是一款独立工具，不属于任何Sprint系列。它在
foundation-sprint-skills
和
design-sprint-skills
系列成员的决策环节被多次调用。这些系列中的SKILL.md文件会直接引用
tool-note-and-vote
，而非嵌入该流程。
该工具也可用于Sprint场景之外：会议、规划环节或工作坊中的任何参与式决策都可使用它。