Probe Storming
If we are holding a meaningful tension, and we deliberately generate varied, safe-to-fail probes aimed at learning rather than control, then we tend to uncover unexpected insight, test implicit assumptions, and discover more coherent paths forward.
Many teams struggle to turn insight into action without falling into premature solutions. Probe Storming helps us stay in the realm of curiosity and abduction. Instead of trying to solve a problem, we explore the tension by creating interventions that learn. These can include traditional research activities, behavioural experiments, or design provocations—as long as they help us generate new understanding about the tension at hand.
How to use this pattern
Return to the tension
Begin by reading the named tension aloud. Ask: “What question is this tension inviting us to explore?” Reframe it as a “How might we…” or “What if…” inquiry.
Frame the Constellation
Review the constellation if it exists. If not, use Tension Constellation Mapping to bring together surrounding beliefs, fragments, and contradictions.
Introduce probe categories
Offer a scaffold to stretch thinking. Typical categories include:
The Obvious Probe
The Analogous Probe
The Disruptive Probe
The Naïve Probe
The Existential Probe
The Diagnostic Probe
The Strategic Probe
The Coherence Probe
Rapid ideation
Invite individuals or pairs to generate 3–5 probe ideas quickly (within 5–7 minutes). Prioritise range over polish. Use sticky notes or digital tools to capture ideas.
Cluster and reflect.
Group the probes by type. Notice patterns: Which types dominate? Which are underused? What assumptions are already visible in the probe mix?
Refine for learning
For each promising probe:
Clarify what you're trying to learn
Identify how you’ll observe or collect feedback (e.g. stories, metrics, informal sense)
Define the cadence of review
Make the probe safe-to-fail: reversible, small, visible
Place probes into Liminal Space
If using a Coherence Map, add the probes into the liminal zone. These are not decisions—they are invitations.
Release and revisit
Let the probes enter the system gently. Revisit them periodically to see:
Has anything shifted?
What new tensions or coherence have emerged?
Do probes need adapting or retiring?
Sense and reflect
Create regular touchpoints for reflection:
What changed?
What surprised us?
Which hypothesis feels more (or less) assertable now?
Affordances
Perceptible Affordances
Framing tension aloud invites shared inquiry
Categorised probe types scaffold creative exploration
Canvas and sticky notes make probes tangible and iterable
Hidden Affordances
Naming ‘disruptive’ or ‘naïve’ probes invites psychological permission to explore taboo or ridiculous ideas
Use of traditional research methods as probes reframes them as active inquiry rather than neutral data collection
Emotional tone of the room can signal fear of failure or performative safety
False Affordances
Treating probes as pilots or MVPs may hide the learning purpose
Using probes to justify a pre-set solution can turn the pattern into performance theatre
Assuming research probes are objective rather than interpretive
Stances
Inquirer. This stance drives the initial framing for the probe storm, ensuring that the ideation is rooted in a clear inquiry question or a tension that needs to be explored. It keeps the focus on what needs to be learned rather than just what needs to be built.
Challenger. This stance is crucial during the ideation process, encouraging participants to question the feasibility, ethical implications, or underlying assumptions of proposed probes, ensuring they are truly safe-to-fail and designed for maximum learning.
Synthesiser. This stance helps to identify common threads or emergent themes across the diverse probe ideas, connecting them to the broader inquiry and refining them into more coherent and impactful experiments.
Noticer. This stance is vital during the storming session, attuned to the energy in the room, unspoken hesitations, or subtle shifts in understanding as probe ideas are generated and discussed.
Facilitator. This stance actively guides the Probe Storming session, setting timeboxes, managing the flow of ideas, encouraging divergent thinking, and ensuring all voices contribute to the generation of probes.
Steward. This stance holds the larger purpose of the probes generated, ensuring they remain aligned with the community's overall strategic intent and contribute to its evolving understanding, rather than just becoming a list of tasks.
Shaper. This stance is central to Probe Storming, as it focuses on translating abstract ideas into concrete, actionable probe designs, outlining their scope, form, and intended learning.
Craftsperson. This stance ensures that the generated probes are designed with integrity, care, and a realistic understanding of their practical implementation and potential consequences in the real world.