Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: bc0ef50ad6a4b2b93745b246a3f8365a37245d0d68909d50e0ec89f2d57b34d1

# 100 Dollar Test

Small groups allocate a fixed budget of 100 imaginary dollars across a shared list of candidate items to clarify relative value. They document their dollar allocations and the rationale behind each trade-off.

**Time:** 25 minutes. Public sources suggest durations from 20 minutes to 1.5 hours. UWT standardizes on 25 minutes for focused prioritization across 6 to 10 items.
**People:** 4 to 24. Subgroups of 3 to 5 participants working in parallel.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Produce a numerical ranking of competing options based on collective judgment under a fixed resource constraint.
**Use it when:** Use when a team has too many competing features, initiatives, or requests and needs to establish relative priority under artificial scarcity.
**Skip it when:** Skip when options have fixed, real-world development costs that must drive the decision, or when mathematical consensus voting would mask critical architectural dependencies.

## Materials and tools

- One printed 100 Dollar Allocation Matrix per subgroup (or digital equivalent)
- One pen per subgroup
- One calculator or phone calculator per subgroup
- One countdown timer visible to all groups

## Before participants arrive

1. Prepare the list of 6 to 10 items to be prioritized in advance.
2. Print or set up the 100 Dollar Allocation Matrix with item names pre-filled.
3. Arrange tables and chairs for subgroups of 3 to 5 people.

## Say this to open

Welcome. We have a list of options to prioritize today. Each group has an imaginary budget of exactly 100 dollars to spend across the entire list. Dollars represent importance and value to you, not the actual cost to build or deliver the item. You must decide together how to divide your 100 dollars across these options, and you must write a brief reason for every non-zero amount. The total spend must equal exactly 100 dollars.

## How to run it

### 1. Introduce items and budget constraint (3 minutes)

Read the candidate items aloud. Clarify that dollars reflect perceived importance, not effort or financial expense. Distribute one matrix and a pen to each subgroup of 3 to 5 people. Groups with 1 or 2 extra people should form groups of 4 or 5.

### 2. Subgroup deliberation and allocation (12 minutes)

Subgroups negotiate allocations across the options. Participants may assign 0 dollars to items they consider low priority. Groups record the dollar figure and a one-sentence rationale for each funded item. Check that all group sums equal exactly 100 dollars. Stop when the timer runs out.

### 3. Share subgroup allocations (6 minutes)

Invite a designated spokesperson from each subgroup to report their top two funded items, the amounts allocated, and the core rationale. Record subgroup totals on a central board or shared spreadsheet.

### 4. Debrief patterns and trade-offs (4 minutes)

Facilitate a brief whole-room reflection on common high-spend items and zero-spend items. Take contributions from 2 or 3 participants to close the session.


## Debrief questions

- Which items received consistent funding across every subgroup, and what does that reveal about our baseline priorities?
- Where did groups disagree most sharply on funding, and what trade-offs drove those differences?
- Which items received zero dollars, and should any of those be removed from current consideration?

**Finished output:** Completed allocation matrices from each subgroup showing numerical spend and rationale for each item, totaling exactly 100 dollars per group.

## Remote

Set up a shared digital spreadsheet with one tab per subgroup. Pre-fill items and insert an automatic SUM formula verifying the total equals 100. Send subgroups of 3 to 5 into video breakout rooms for 12 minutes. Bring all participants back to the main room to view the summary tab and present their top priorities.

## Hybrid

In-person attendees form room-based tables; remote attendees form virtual breakout rooms. Both types of groups record their numbers into a single live online spreadsheet displayed simultaneously on the room screen and screen-share.

## Access and participation choices

- Subgroups choose their own scribe, calculator operator, and spokesperson so individual participants can contribute without being required to speak publicly.
- Participants may silently pass during subgroup debate or record their individual thoughts on scratch paper before speaking.

## If the session gets stuck

**A subgroup confuses imaginary value dollars with the real-world cost or technical effort required to complete the item.**

Intervene immediately and remind the group: 'Imagine every item costs the exact same amount to build. Your dollars measure only how much you value having that item.'

**A subgroup finishes with an allocation that adds up to more or less than 100 dollars.**

Provide a calculator and ask them to trim or add funds from their middle-tier items until the total equals exactly 100.


## Terms used here

- False Scarcity: An artificial constraint imposed on a group to force clear prioritization and trade-off decisions among competing options.

## Participant material: 100 Dollar Allocation Matrix

Group Name / Number: ____________________
Rules: Distribute exactly $100 across the items below. $0 is an acceptable allocation. The Total must equal $100.

[ Item 1 ]
Amount Allocated: $_______
Rationale: __________________________________________________

[ Item 2 ]
Amount Allocated: $_______
Rationale: __________________________________________________

[ Item 3 ]
Amount Allocated: $_______
Rationale: __________________________________________________

[ Item 4 ]
Amount Allocated: $_______
Rationale: __________________________________________________

[ Item 5 ]
Amount Allocated: $_______
Rationale: __________________________________________________

[ Item 6 ]
Amount Allocated: $_______
Rationale: __________________________________________________

[ Item 7 ]
Amount Allocated: $_______
Rationale: __________________________________________________

[ Item 8 ]
Amount Allocated: $_______
Rationale: __________________________________________________

TOTAL SPENT (Must equal $100): $_______

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Gamestorming and SessionLab under the titles '$100 Test' and 'Divide the Dollar'. Gamestorming notes that original authorship of the method is unknown.

Public sources describe the game mechanic of spending an imaginary $100 across a matrix with rationale to prioritize software features or choices. UWT introduced a standardized 25-minute schedule, explicit subgroup arithmetic, access options, a concrete printable matrix template, and hybrid/remote running guidelines.

[Gamestorming](https://gamestorming.com/100-test)

[Gamestorming](https://gamestorming.com/100-test/)

[SessionLab](https://www.sessionlab.com/methods/100-test)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/100-test/