Everything a prospective participant needs to make the case to their manager, their L&D team, or their CFO—from a one-line justification to a full business case. Adapt, personalise, and send.
The four decision types where untested assumptions are most expensive are specific: AI deployments, growth bets, market entries, and transformation initiatives. If you are navigating any of these right now—or will be in the next quarter—this kit gives you everything needed to make the case for attendance. The programme develops four specific, practiced capabilities that you bring back and apply to that decision immediately.
One sentence that frames the request, names the business case, and invites a conversation. Use in any informal context where you need to introduce the idea before following up with more detail.
I want to attend a five-day methodology intensive in [LOCATION] that will give me a structured practice for testing the assumptions underneath our most important [GROWTH / TRANSFORMATION / AI] decisions—and I think it is worth discussing whether we should send a team of three to access the group rate.
The Think Wrong Wine Intensive uses the Provençal wine industry as a live laboratory for developing the practice of surfacing the assumptions underneath our growth strategy—I want to attend in June and bring two colleagues so we can apply it together when we return.
There is a leadership methodology intensive in Paris in June that uses the performing arts crisis as a mirror for the assumption failures in our own strategy—and I think attending with two colleagues would give us a shared language and practice to apply immediately.
The Irish whiskey industry’s current challenge—forty companies making the same confident bet on an untested assumption—is the clearest available mirror for the AI deployment decisions we are making right now, and I want to spend five days on the Wild Atlantic Way developing the practice of examining ours.
The Think Wrong Automotive Intensive uses the UK automotive industry’s simultaneous four-way disruption as the live case for developing the practice of reframing challenges before the capital commits—which is exactly what we need before the Q3 decision.
I want to attend an intensive in Amsterdam that uses the European mobility transition as the laboratory for developing a practice I can apply directly to the long-horizon investment decisions our team is making this year.
Given the changes in the threat landscape over the last two years, I want to spend five days in Tallinn with NATO CCDCOE access developing a structured practice for examining which of our infrastructure and resilience planning assumptions are still sound—before our next round of capital commits.
A one-screen email that makes the business case, names the specific challenge, and proposes the group option. Personalise the first paragraph. The rest is ready to send.
Subject: Development programme request—Think Wrong [PROGRAMME NAME] Intensive, [LOCATION]
Hi [MANAGER NAME],
I would like to request approval to attend the Think Wrong [PROGRAMME NAME] Intensive in [LOCATION], [DATES]. I am also recommending we consider sending [COLLEAGUE 1] and [COLLEAGUE 2]—at three participants we access the group rate, which brings the cost to €3,750 per person—all-in.
Why this programme specifically: [INSERT ONE SENTENCE CONNECTING THE PROGRAMME TO YOUR TEAM’S CURRENT CHALLENGE. E.g.: “We are three months away from committing significant budget to [INITIATIVE], and I want to develop the structured practice for testing the assumptions underneath it before that decision is made, not after.”]
What the programme produces: Four specific capabilities I will bring back and apply immediately—a structured method for framing the right challenge before committing resources, a faster way to generate and test hypotheses, a discipline for identifying which assumptions are highest-risk, and a facilitation practice I can run with the team. The week uses [INDUSTRY] as the laboratory. The capabilities are industry-agnostic.
The investment:
Programme fee: €4,250 per person—all-in
Group rate (3 or more from the same organisation, recommended): €3,750 per person—all-in
Total for three at the group rate: €11,250
Includes programme, facilitation, fieldwork access, and meals during programme. Accommodation is participant’s own arrangement.
What I will bring back: A written summary within one week of returning—the three most consequential assumptions surfaced during the week that are relevant to [CURRENT INITIATIVE], the small tests I am proposing to examine them, and a 60-minute session with the team to apply the practice to our live challenge.
I have attached the programme brief. Happy to discuss—let me know if you want to set up ten minutes.
[YOUR NAME]
A standalone one-pager designed to be forwarded to an L&D team, a budget committee, or a CFO. Answers the five questions every approval process asks. Adapt the programme-specific fields.
Programme: Think Wrong [PROGRAMME NAME] Innovators Intensive
Provider: Solve Next · solvenext.com
Location / dates: [LOCATION], [DATES]
Duration: 4.5 days (arrival Sunday evening, departure Friday midday)
Participants requested: [NAME(S)]
Total investment: €[AMOUNT] [per person / for [N] people at group rate]
What the programme is
An immersive Think Wrong Blitz—the format the methodology was designed for—applied to a live external industry at a visible deflection point. Develops four specific, practiced capabilities: (1) Framing the right challenge before solutions take hold. (2) Distinguishing what the organisation knows from what it believes. (3) Identifying which assumptions, if wrong, change a decision only the CFO can authorise. (4) Designing the smallest credible test that converts belief into evidence before capital commits. The industry is the laboratory. The capabilities transfer to any AI deployment, growth bet, market entry, or transformation initiative the participant is navigating on return.
Why this programme, at this time
[INSERT: the specific AI deployment, growth bet, market entry, or transformation initiative that makes this timely. E.g.: “Our team is preparing to commit €/£X to [INITIATIVE] in [QUARTER]. The primary risk in that decision is not execution capacity—it is whether the assumptions underlying the initiative have been adequately tested. This programme develops the specific practice for doing that before the capital commits, not after.”]
What participants will bring back
Each participant returns with: (1) four trained capabilities applicable immediately to live challenges; (2) a written assumption map for our current highest-priority initiative, developed during the Friday transfer session; (3) the facilitation capability to run structured assumption-testing sessions inside the organisation; and (4) the Certified Serious Capital Activator™ designation, earned as part of the programme credential pathway.
How the investment compares + one year of Next Lab Professional access (€999 / $999 value)—the platform used during the week to access Think Wrong drills, design sessions and sprints, and track assumptions and learnings. Existing subscribers receive a one-year renewal.
Equivalent executive development programmes at INSEAD, IMD, or London Business School run £5,500–£10,000 per person, excluding accommodation, for three to five days. The Think Wrong Intensive at €4,250 all-in (€3,750 per person at the 3+ group rate) delivers comparable duration, significantly more applied fieldwork, and a specific methodology credential. The methodology is drawn from a book now in its third printing, published in English, Spanish, and Arabic—with a decade of application at Genentech, the White House, JP Morgan, Microsoft, and Airbus.
Contact for questions
Solve Next: hello@solvenext.com · +1 415 209 5065
Use these calculations in any conversation where the investment requires a financial justification. The logic is simple: one better decision, made on a tested rather than an assumed premise, produces far more value than the programme costs.
| Decision type | Typical at-stake value | Cost of wrong assumption | Programme cost | ROI if one decision improves |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI deployment decision Building on wrong premise about use case or adoption |
€500K–€5M investment | 50–100% of investment if wrong premise not caught | €4,250 per person €3,750 at the 3+ group rate |
100–1,000× |
| Market entry or expansion Entering a market on untested demand assumptions |
€1M–€20M | Significant write-down if market assumption fails | €4,250 per person €3,750 at the 3+ group rate |
200–4,000× |
| Product or service launch Solving the wrong version of the customer problem |
€200K–€2M development cost | Cost of pivot or abandonment if wrong problem | €4,250 per person €3,750 at the 3+ group rate |
50–500× |
| Transformation programme Redesigning a system built on assumptions that haven’t been examined |
€2M–€50M programme spend | Programme delivers against wrong brief | €4,250 per person €3,750 at the 3+ group rate |
500–10,000× |
| Infrastructure or security investment Planning assumptions not updated against current environment |
€1M–€100M | Incident cost or rebuild cost if assumption fails | €4,250 per person €3,750 at the 3+ group rate |
Variable, significant |
| Next Lab Professional Platform access for Think Wrong drills, session design, assumption tracking | €999 / $999 per participant 1-year subscription value | Included in every programme format. No separate cost. Existing subscribers receive a renewal at no additional charge. |
Think Wrong: How to Conquer the Status Quo was published in 2016. It is now in its third printing (2025) and has been translated into Spanish and Arabic in addition to the original English edition. Third printing means sustained demand across a decade—unusual for a methodology book and a signal that practitioners are buying it for ongoing use, not novelty. Spanish and Arabic translations mean the methodology has been validated across significantly different cultural and organisational contexts, not just Northern California design thinking. The case studies in the book—Genentech, the White House, SodaStream, Microsoft, JP Morgan—are a decade old. They are not claims about what the methodology might produce. They are evidence of what it has produced, at scale, in three languages, across three print runs.
The ROI table above is the right tool for CFO conversations. For L&D and manager conversations, a different frame works better: LFI—Learn From Investment.
The Think Wrong book introduced LFI as the explicit alternative to ROI. ROI thinks in binary terms: worked or didn’t work, right or wrong. This is why most development programmes lose the approval conversation—they cannot guarantee a measurable return. LFI reframes the question: the goal is discovery, not being right. The week’s value is not a return calculated after the fact. It is the assumptions surfaced and tested before the capital commits, not after it does.
“This is not an ROI calculation. It is a Learn From Investment. The question is not whether the week pays back in measurable terms. The question is whether the assumptions we test during the week are worth testing before the budget commits—not after.”
The programme costs €4,250 per person—all-in (€3,750 at the 3+ group rate). If attending produces even one better decision—one assumption surfaced and tested before the budget commits that would otherwise have been discovered after—the programme pays for itself in the first week back. For any decision above €100,000, the maths are not close.
The question is not whether the programme is worth the investment. The question is whether this is the right time to develop this practice, and whether this is the right programme for it.
Use this section to describe specific, concrete deliverables to your manager before you attend. Managers approve programmes more readily when the output is specific rather than general.
Three or more participants from the same organisation qualify for the group rate of €3,750 per person—all-in. This template reframes the programme as a team development initiative—which is often easier to approve and produces faster internal application on return.
Programme: Think Wrong [PROGRAMME NAME] Intensive · [LOCATION] · [DATES]
Proposed participants: [NAME 1], [NAME 2], [NAME 3]
Total investment: €11,250 (group rate €3,750 per person—all-in: programme, facilitation, fieldwork access, and meals; accommodation is each participant’s own arrangement)
The case for sending a team rather than an individual
Individual attendance produces capability. Team attendance produces a shared practice. When three people from the same organisation return with the same methodology and language, the application compounds—they can run assumption-testing sessions with each other, challenge each other’s framing, and hold each other accountable to the small bets designed during the week.
The group rate also produces a meaningful financial difference: three people at €3,750 each (€11,250 total) versus three individual bookings at €4,250 each (€12,750)—a saving of €1,500 on identical programme access.
Why this team, at this time
[INSERT: the specific shared challenge or initiative that makes this team composition sensible. E.g.: “All three of us are involved in the [INITIATIVE] decision scheduled for [QUARTER]. We want to develop the assumption-testing practice together and apply it immediately to that decision—which involves a commitment of approximately €[AMOUNT] on premises that have not been tested against evidence.”]
What we will produce collectively within 60 days
Week 1 back: Individual assumption maps for [CURRENT INITIATIVE], shared and consolidated as a team
Week 2 back: A joint team session applying the methodology to our most important live decision
Month 2: A recommendation to [MANAGER/CFO] on whether any escalation-level assumptions require a broader conversation
Next step: Confirm group booking with hello@solvenext.com by [DATE] to secure three places at the group rate.
These are the four most common reasons a manager hesitates to approve a development programme of this kind. Each one has a direct, honest response.
The programme runs Sunday evening to Friday midday—four working days, not five. The Friday session is a half-day that produces the most immediately applicable output of the week: a transfer plan for [CURRENT INITIATIVE] and a facilitation-ready assumption map.
The question is whether four working days is a reasonable investment to improve the quality of a decision with [€X] at stake. If the decision is over €100,000, the maths are straightforward.
The cost is €4,250 per person—all-in (€3,750 at the 3+ group rate). Comparable duration programmes at INSEAD and IMD run £5,500–£10,000 per person, excluding accommodation.
More importantly, the question is not whether the programme is expensive relative to other programmes. It is whether the capability it develops is worth the cost relative to the decisions it will be applied to. One better decision on a €500,000 initiative produces a return of more than 100 times the programme cost.
The [INDUSTRY] used in the programme is not the point—it is the medium through which a specific discipline is developed. The discipline is: framing challenges correctly before committing resources, identifying the assumptions with the highest risk if wrong, and designing the smallest possible tests before the capital commits.
This discipline is directly applicable to [SPECIFIC CURRENT CHALLENGE]. I can outline exactly how on a 15-minute call if it would help.
This is not a training programme in the conventional sense. It is a live application intensive—half the time is spent in the field, applying the methodology to a real industry challenge with real stakeholders who are living the problem.
The result is a capability that is tested under conditions of genuine uncertainty, with real consequences for getting the analysis wrong. That is fundamentally different from a classroom or workshop setting, and it is why the transfer rate back to live organisational challenges is significantly higher.
The Think Wrong book identifies five types of people in every organisation. Knowing which one you are—and which one is approving your request—changes how you make the case and what language you use. The book was written for all five. So is this kit.
The innovators and disruptors who crave open space to explore new possibilities. You are not content with the predictable path. You keep bringing ideas forward and finding them killed by well-meaning Right Thinkers. Think Wrong matters to you because it gives you the language, frameworks, and tools to defend nascent solutions before they get extinguished. The Intensive is for Outlaws who want to build the practice rather than just survive the next encounter with the status quo.
The caretakers who protect Outlaws from those bent on stopping them. Shepherds provide cover for exploration and help promising solutions reach the organisation without upending everything around them. Think Wrong matters to Shepherds because it gives them the governance language to demarcate where Wrong Thinking is permitted and where Right Thinking is a must. When making the case to your manager, frame the programme as developing a Shepherd capability: you return with a structured discipline, not just enthusiasm.
The guides who help Shepherds and Outlaws navigate uncharted paths and locate resources. Scouts lack ego, toil tirelessly, and go the extra mile to ensure fruitful explorations. They are often hired for their knowledge of new territories. Think Wrong matters to Scouts because it helps them chart the most rewarding course and carry the right equipment. If this is you, the programme returns with a facilitation toolkit: you become the person who can run assumption-testing sessions inside your organisation.
The peace officers who enforce law and order. Sheriffs make sure everything runs according to plan and that rules are followed. Think Wrong matters to Sheriffs because it helps them demarcate the territories where exploration is permitted and where operational rigour is a must. When making the case to an L&D team or budget approver, use the one-page brief. Sheriffs respond to structure, credential pathways, and measurable commitments on return—all of which are in this kit.
Most people in an organisation want a peaceful life. They follow the rules and respond to the hue and cry. But the book notes that Think Wrong matters to Posses too: it clarifies the rightness of their efforts while helping them understand—and even support—the Outlaws marking out the next territory. When you propose the team booking, the Posse members you bring become internal evangelists on return. They are not just participants. They are the people who make the discipline stick inside the organisation after the week is over.
For each programme, one paragraph connecting the industry laboratory to a challenge the participant’s organisation is likely navigating. Use this in the “why this programme specifically” section of the manager email.