What is the LH method? It's about how the more comparison points you have, the less decisive the method becomes.
The other day, while reading some survey data on B2B purchasing, I involuntarily exclaimed, "Ah, this is something I've felt for the past 20 years."
A survey revealed that the number of people involved in decision-making in large-scale B2B purchases is steadily increasing. Nearly 60% of projects involve seven or more people in the approval process. Seeing these figures reminded me of my time as a designer working on the front lines.
Many designers prepare multiple design options, such as Option A and Option B, and let the client choose according to their preference. However, for some reason, I would propose only one option, and it was almost always adopted. "Why is it that my design is always chosen with just one option?" Wanting to know the reason, I made it the topic of my graduation thesis at business school. This experience became the origin of the framework that would later be called the "LH Method."
This is what I want to state clearly at the outset.The more factors we use for comparison, the harder it becomes to see the deciding factor.This is something I've felt on the job for the past 20 years, but looking at recent B2B purchasing data has solidified my conviction.
The more people involved in the decision-making process, the more difficult it becomes to discern the "decisive factor."
According to the "Japan B2B Large-Scale Purchasing, Buyer, and Enablement Survey" conducted by IDEATECH in May 2026 (targeting 330 people involved with software/SaaS implementations with annual contracts of 5 million yen or more, involving two or more people), 58.51 TP3T projects involved seven or more people in the approval process.
Here's where it gets interesting. In the same survey, only about half of the respondents said that a "feature comparison chart" influenced their purchasing decision. On the other hand, about 60% said that an "ROI calculation simulator" and "operational load estimation information" were useful.
In other words, while the number of people involved and the amount of comparative data have increased, the side-by-side comparison tables themselves are not functioning as a decisive factor. What is decisive is the high-resolution, individual answer: what happens when we apply it to our own situation?
In other words, information that can definitively state, "This is how it will be in your company's case," may be far more encouraging than a list that simply states, "Here are the differences in the functions of Company A and Company B." This aligns with the idea that simply presenting Option A and Option B side-by-side and asking, "Which do you prefer?" is actually not very effective.
Even if the number of candidates increases, in the end, you have to see it for yourself.
A 2026 survey conducted by Piftee (targeting 196 people involved in selecting B2B suppliers) found that 821 TP3Ts discovered companies they had never heard of before using AI search. However, only 211 TP3Ts actually placed an order. Of those who used AI, 981 TP3Ts did some form of "background check," and 711 TP3Ts ultimately checked the company's official website themselves.
A similar trend can be seen in the "Survey on Awareness and Actual Practices Regarding B2B Purchasing in Japan" (targeting 1,573 employees working at companies with 50 or more employees), also conducted by HubSpot Japan in 2026. The confidence level of the information itself compiled by the generating AI is only 37.8%. This is clearly lower than the confidence level of 60.6% for clear information such as price and contract terms.
The entry points for gathering information have increased. The means of finding potential companies have also increased. Even so, the basis for ultimately trusting and choosing a company is what the company says in its own words. No matter how much comparative information is available, the deciding factor is not created there. To be honest, I think this is a number that cannot be carelessly ignored, not only for those placing orders, but also for those making proposals.
What is the LH Method? — The story behind the "decided in one proposal"
We have a problem identification framework that we call the "LH Method," which we've been refining for nearly 20 years.
As I mentioned at the beginning, it all started with my own experience of "somehow getting a decision with just one proposal." What I realized after analyzing it was that the quality of the interview was crucially different, rather than the technical skills of the design itself. If you can accurately grasp the objective and the current situation, the problems will naturally emerge, and the solutions will naturally narrow down. Conversely, if that remains vague, the proposal will end up being nothing more than "matching preferences." In reality, presenting multiple proposals is often just a way to fill in the gaps that couldn't be finalized during the interview by letting the client choose.
If I were to define it in my own words,The LH method is "a framework of questions designed to articulate the gap between the ideal state and the current situation, and to uncover issues that the client themselves may not yet be aware of."It could also be said that this approach is less about a dictionary-like framework and more about a structure that is a direct result of a strong interest in the other person. If someone says "red," you delve into what kind of red they mean. You present extreme examples and ask them to choose, then you ask "why did you choose that?" It's the same approach as a child repeatedly asking "why?", gradually concretizing vague images one by one.
I believe there are two types of challenges: explicit challenges that customers are already aware of, and latent challenges that haven't yet been put into words. The LH method truly shines when it comes to uncovering the latter, which is honestly a time-consuming and tedious process. However, because we take on the burden of comparison before handing it over to the customer, the "selection" stage itself becomes simpler as a result.
The question is, "Does that change align with the original purpose?"
The LH method really starts to show its effects after the project has already begun.
It's not uncommon for clients' requests to change midway through a project. Sometimes, due to budget constraints, they might try to cut elements that were initially deemed important. In such situations, we always ask this question: "Does that change align with the objective you initially envisioned?" If we determine that it's essential for achieving the objective, we don't hesitate to resubmit the proposal. As a result, we often hear clients say, "I'm glad we didn't change it after all."
At first glance, our company might seem troublesome. However, I believe that this very process of asking follow-up questions is what makes clients feel "glad they asked us for help" later on. As the number of people involved in decision-making increases and the amount of internal documentation grows, this "initial objective" easily becomes blurred. The more people involved, the more likely it is that the conclusion will be swayed by the opinion of someone with a loud voice or the prevailing atmosphere of the moment. That's precisely why the value of having someone who can bring you back to the original objective from the outside is actually increasing.
Summary: We're entering an era where companies that can "make definitive statements" are chosen, rather than those that are merely points of comparison.
Even though the number of people involved in decision-making has increased and the means of gathering information have expanded, the deciding factors themselves have not. In fact, the more comparison points there are, the harder it becomes to see the deciding factors. If that's the case, then when choosing a supplier from now on, I think what we should look at is not the number of options or the thoroughness of the materials, but how confidently the company can speak for itself in its own words.
Specifically, it's about whether they don't simply accept requests at face value, but instead ask, "Will this really achieve the objective?" Instead of presenting multiple options and letting you choose, do they responsibly offer a single answer and explain its reasoning? You can often see the difference in a company's capabilities by observing these aspects.
The LH method that we've been using for the past 20 years is ultimately nothing more than a series of questions. If you're willing to engage with those questions, that would make me happiest.
FAQ
Q. Can the LH method be imitated by other companies?
A. The structure itself is simple, and I think anyone could imitate the basic model. However, to actually make it work, you need the fortitude to maintain a strong interest in the other person throughout the entire interview. I feel that's the hardest part to imitate.
Q. Wouldn't you feel uneasy if only one option was presented without any comparison or evaluation?
A. It often surprises people at first. But in reality, it's not that we "don't compare" options; we're simply eliminating the possibility of options A and B emerging during the initial consultation. It's more accurate to say that we take on the task of comparison ourselves before handing the options over to the client.
Q. Can the LH method be used for purposes other than branding?
A. I actually use it in job interviews, organizational assessments, and interviews for overseas projects, and I feel it's a fairly universal "problem-finding model" that works even across language and cultural barriers.
After starting his own business at the age of 26, he has over 20 years of management experience in the design and branding fields. In 2016, he moved with his family to the Philippines and established a local IT outsourcing company, leading its global expansion. Currently, as a "GLOBAL BRANDING AGENCY," he supports the growth of companies while also actively working on organizational reforms within his own company. Based on the real-world struggles and firsthand information he has faced in organizational development and overseas management, he shares practical branding and organizational theories that are thoroughly aligned with the perspective of business leaders.
