Define the decision space
Establish scope, boundaries and exclusions before analysis expands in different directions.
A developing discipline for collaborative inquiry
Better questions. More transparent reasoning. More defensible decisions.
INQUIRIM is a structured discipline for collaborative inquiry in complex and high-stakes decisions. It helps groups define the problem, develop useful questions, and gather relevant evidence and insight from a diverse range of sources and perspectives. It then provides a visible structure for testing what has been gathered—examining its strength, relevance and meaning; challenging the assumptions surrounding it; and using it to test propositions and develop answers. Throughout, INQUIRIM preserves the reasoning behind the judgements reached.
Challenge pointsAssumptions
Knowledge gaps
Knowledge gaps
Out of scope
Products & outputs
Answer hierarchy: every earlier stage remains open to review; products and outputs then emerge from the resulting answer.
01 The problem
Bias can enter before an answer is reached.Important decisions can go wrong long before an answer is reached.
Bias rarely enters an inquiry deliberately. It can be introduced through the way a problem is framed, the questions that are asked, the boundaries placed around the inquiry and the evidence selected for consideration. It can also arise when the inquiry does not rigorously seek out a sufficiently diverse range of voices, experiences and perspectives—or ensure that the concerns they raise are properly recorded and considered.
Early impressions, hierarchy, group dynamics and unspoken assumptions can then shape what participants notice, overlook or feel able to challenge. Because these influences often remain invisible, even a conscientious group may reinforce them without realising it.
The result may appear decisive while leaving uncertainty, disagreement and knowledge gaps insufficiently examined.
02 The INQUIRIM difference
A visible structure for collective reasoning.A disciplined route from the core question to the final judgement.
INQUIRIM makes it easier to recognise and mitigate these influences by giving the inquiry a visible structure. Scope, questions, propositions, evidence, assumptions and judgements are kept distinct, making it easier to see where interpretation and bias may have entered the reasoning.
Supporting, countering and neutral insights remain visible, knowledge gaps are recorded, and participation can be structured to reduce the influence of hierarchy and dominant voices. INQUIRIM does not claim to eliminate bias; it creates more opportunities for bias to be identified, challenged and taken into account.
This creates a reasoning trail that can be examined, challenged and revised—without removing the responsibility of people to make the judgement.
Strengthen collective reasoning
Make room for challenge, counter-evidence and less dominant contributions without confusing participation with consensus.
Preserve the reasoning
Show how evidence, assumptions and supporting answers contributed to the final judgement.
03 How it works
An inquiry architecture built around aligned questions and answers.
INQUIRIM begins by defining the decision space and developing a hierarchy of questions around what the inquiry must ultimately answer. Propositions give the inquiry meaningful ideas to test. Relevant evidence and insight are then gathered from diverse sources and perspectives—not simply accepted, but examined for strength, relevance and meaning, and used to support, challenge or leave propositions unresolved. Deliberate challenge points make assumptions visible and capture missing evidence, insight, experience or perspective so collaborators can help close the resulting knowledge gaps. The findings are then developed into an answer hierarchy from which qualified judgements, products and outputs can emerge.
Inquiry component
Define the decision space
Establish boundaries, context and explicit exclusions before the inquiry expands. Contributions designated out of scope are captured and reviewed rather than silently discarded.
Scoping→Question hierarchy→Propositions→Evidence & insight→Answer hierarchy→Outputs
04 Guided inquiry
Explore a national preparedness inquiry.
Follow a simplified fictional inquiry as it develops from a defined scope and one core question through propositions, gathered evidence and insight, deliberate challenge points and a qualified answer.
How prepared should the nation be for a prolonged disruption to essential digital services?
Illustrative inquiryScope and exclusions
Keep the inquiry focused without losing what falls outside it
During an inquiry, contributions designated as out of scope are captured in a dedicated area rather than discarded. They are subsequently included in the review process, where the designation is tested: is the contribution genuinely outside the agreed scope, or does it reveal a reason to revise the scope document? If it remains outside the inquiry’s scope but warrants further attention, it may justify a separate piece of tasking. This allows the inquiry to remain focused while ensuring potentially important contributions are not lost or excluded without review.
- In scope: national preparedness for prolonged disruption to essential digital services
- Captured contribution: resilience to short, localised service outages
- Review: retain the exclusion, revise the scope document or commission separate tasking
This example is illustrative. It does not represent a completed inquiry undertaken for any government or institution, nor imply endorsement.
05 Principles
Structured inquiry without surrendering human judgement.
INQUIRIM is designed to improve how groups inquire together, not to automate responsibility or manufacture agreement.
Human accountability
People remain responsible for conclusions, decisions and their consequences.
Visible provenance
Evidence and insights retain their source and relationship to the propositions they inform.
Challenge by design
Supporting, countering and neutral material can remain visible throughout the inquiry.
Bias-aware participation
Contribution can be structured to reduce the influence of hierarchy and dominant voices.
Provisional judgement
Answers can be qualified, versioned and revisited as evidence or circumstances change.
Optional AI
Artificial intelligence may accelerate defined tasks, but its contribution should be transparent and human judgement remains accountable.
06 Applications
Designed for decisions that cannot be reduced to a quick answer.
INQUIRIM may support work where the question is contested, the evidence is incomplete, several perspectives matter and the reasoning behind a judgement must remain open to examination.
Policy and strategy
Clarify the questions that must be answered before a preferred course is selected.
Preparedness and emerging risk
Examine uncertain threats, competing interpretations and consequential assumptions.
Foresight
Connect alternative futures and signals to the judgements they inform.
Organisational review
Distinguish evidence, explanation and assumption when assessing performance or change.
Multi-stakeholder decisions
Create a shared reasoning structure without requiring every participant to begin from the same position.
These are illustrative applications, not claims of completed client work.
07 Where INQUIRIM may create value
A discipline for communities working with consequential questions.
INQUIRIM may benefit any organisation, professional community or collaborative group working with complex questions, incomplete or contested evidence, competing perspectives, and decisions that require a transparent and defensible reasoning process.
Governments and public institutions
Supporting policy development, strategy, preparedness, organisational review and decisions spanning multiple agencies or public interests.
Consultancies and professional advisory services
Providing a structured, repeatable and auditable approach to collaborative inquiry within client engagements and complex advisory work.
Academic and research communities
Helping researchers, doctoral candidates and multidisciplinary teams structure questions, examine competing propositions and maintain a visible relationship between evidence and judgement.
International and mission-led organisations
Supporting inquiries that cross institutional, disciplinary, cultural or jurisdictional boundaries and require diverse perspectives to be considered systematically.
These examples illustrate some of the settings in which INQUIRIM may create value. They are not intended to define or limit its future applications.
08 The name
Why INQUIRIM?
INQUIRIM is a coined name drawing together three ideas at the heart of the discipline.
The structured pursuit of understanding through questions.
The collective participation needed to develop and test judgement.
The recognition that conclusions remain open to revision as evidence and circumstances change.
09 Development status
INQUIRIM is being developed as a public discipline of inquiry.
INQUIRIM is seeking partners willing to scrutinise, test and refine the discipline in practice. Over time, the aim is to establish appropriate forms of independent recognition, accreditation and professional assurance. Detailed opportunities to participate in trials, facilitated inquiries and other forms of collaboration will be published as they become available.
Independent initiativeINQUIRIM is being developed independently. It is not currently formally endorsed, accredited or commissioned by any government, institution or professional body.
10 Expressions of interest
Follow the development of INQUIRIM.
Register your interest in the method and future opportunities to contribute, participate or collaborate. We will only contact you when there is something relevant to share.
Start a conversation.
To register your interest, discuss a potential collaboration or ask a question, email INQUIRIM.
Please tell us what interests you and whether you would like to receive relevant updates. Read our Privacy Notice for how we use your information.