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: 96f10ba31338dc1949b5ec6e08c757b0a7b8382908400fd0a882a6e6f334bfbb

# Anticipating Implications and Unintended Consequences

Small groups brainstorm possible side effects of a planned policy or project scenario, score each by likelihood, and draft concrete mitigation actions for the top risks.

**Time:** 60 minutes. Source specifies a 60-minute sequence across five phases (10, 10, 10, 20, 10 minutes).
**People:** 4 to 24. Small groups of 4 to 6. If counts leave remainders such as 7 or 17, form groups of 3 to 5 instead so everyone has an active group.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Map potential unintended outcomes of an initiative and draft early plans to prevent or lessen unfavorable impacts.
**Use it when:** Use during planning or policy design when a team needs to examine downstream ripple effects before locking in decisions.
**Skip it when:** Skip when the immediate task is open-ended problem exploration or when a decision has already been executed and cannot be changed.

## Materials and tools

- Printed scenario cards (1 per participant)
- Lined chart paper or flip chart pad (1 sheet per small group)
- Markers (2 per small group)
- Pens or pencils (1 per participant)
- Scratch paper (1 sheet per participant)
- Scoring reference cards or slide display of rating points (1 per table or displayed on screen)
- Digital timer

## Before participants arrive

1. Print or display the scenario handout for all participants.
2. Set up tables for groups of 3 to 6 people.
3. Place one sheet of chart paper, two markers, and scratch paper at each table.

## Say this to open

Decisions often create ripples beyond what we intended. Today we will examine a concrete scenario, map out possible side effects, score which ones are most likely, and build mitigation steps. Read the scenario at your table. For the next ten minutes, write down every possible consequence that might occur if this plan is carried out. Do not judge or debate ideas yet. Focus on capturing a wide range of outcomes.

## How to run it

### 1. Read scenario and brainstorm consequences (10 minutes)

Participants read the scenario quietly. In small groups, participants call out possible outcomes while one or more volunteers write them onto the chart paper. Instruct groups not to critique or filter ideas during this time. Any participant may pass on contributing an item.

### 2. Expand and combine themes (10 minutes)

Groups combine obvious duplicates. Introduce four expansion prompts: 1) Scale (individual to global), 2) Time (immediate vs multi-decade), 3) Affected parties (direct users vs non-obvious neighbors), and 4) Environment. Groups write newly identified consequences directly onto their chart.

### 3. Score likelihood individually and rank (10 minutes)

Each person silently scores every listed item on scratch paper using: 5 points for very likely, 3 points for possible but unlikely, and 0 points for will not occur. Groups sum individual points for each item to identify their top 3 highest-scoring consequences.

### 4. Develop mitigation strategies (20 minutes)

Each group focuses on their top 3 highest-scoring consequences. For any that are unfavorable, they draft at least two concrete actions planners could take to prevent the outcome or lessen its damage. Group members record these actions on their chart paper.

### 5. Debrief and compare across tables (10 minutes)

Convene the whole room. Invite one spokesperson from each small group to share their top consequence and the mitigation plan they designed. Limit each group share to 90 seconds to preserve time.


## Debrief questions

- Which anticipated consequences appeared across multiple groups, and which were unique?
- What types of viewpoints or life experiences were missing from our room that might reveal other consequences?
- When in a project lifecycle is it most practical to run this kind of check, and when is it too late?

**Finished output:** A group-scored list of possible unintended consequences and a written list of prevention or response strategies for the top three risks.

## Remote

Run in video breakout rooms of 3 to 6 participants. Provide the scenario and prompts in a shared digital whiteboard. Participants enter brainstormed items as sticky notes, complete individual silent scoring in private notes or on a shared grid, calculate totals, and record mitigation steps directly on their team board. Return to the main room for brief 90-second share-outs.

## Hybrid

Form fully in-person small groups and fully remote breakout rooms to prevent audio interference. Provide identical digital scenario sheets and shared scoring tables to all participants. A designated remote spokesperson and an in-person spokesperson present in alternating order during the full-group debrief.

## Access and participation choices

- Provide the scenario in written format beforehand for participants who need extra reading time.
- Allow participants to write consequences down silently or speak them aloud for a scribe.
- Any participant may choose to observe silently during brainstorming or pass during debrief.

## If the session gets stuck

**Groups start debating whether an outcome is good or bad during the first brainstorming step, stalling list generation.**

Remind the room that the first step is strictly rapid collection without critique. Ask them to capture the idea as stated and reserve evaluation for the scoring and mitigation steps.

**Groups struggle to come up with unintended consequences and only list positive goals from the scenario text.**

Prompt them with a concrete neutral example: If a city raises building aesthetic codes, rents often rise and displace long-term small businesses. Ask who might lose money, housing, or access under the scenario.


## Terms used here

- Unintended consequence: An outcome of a purposeful action that was not part of the original goal or plan.
- Mitigation: An action taken to prevent a risk or reduce the severity of a negative outcome.

## Participant material: Sample Scenario: City of Greenmont

The City of Greenmont was devastated by a major flood. All of the riverfront was destroyed. The city leaders decided that the need to rebuild the riverfront was an opportunity to upgrade the appearance of the city. Building codes were upgraded. Design standards were created. The Building Commission added aesthetics to one of its decision criteria for approval of new construction or major renovations. A public-private partnership was created to rebuild the city's riverfront. The project was a huge success and became a showcase for how the city could transform its appearance. This led to further changes in the city. Older buildings were condemned and replaced with structures that met the new codes, building standards, and aesthetics.

## Participant material: Likelihood Scoring Guide

Rate each consequence silently:
5 points: I believe this unanticipated consequence is very likely to occur.
3 points: I believe this unanticipated consequence could occur, but it is not very likely that it will.
0 points: I do not believe this unanticipated consequence will occur.

Add individual points together to identify the top 3 highest-rated items.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Collaborative Discussion Project under module 3.6, citing Jack Byrd's work on unintended consequences.

The original procedure from the Collaborative Discussion Project uses a 60-minute breakdown (10, 10, 10, 20, 10 minutes) across small groups. The original title prefix number 6 in the old slug reflected CDP module indexing (3.6 Anticipating Implications and Unintended Consequences). UWT normalized the title, retained the complete Greenmont scenario, verified the scoring rubric (5, 3, 0 scale), preserved all four expansion prompts, allowed flexible scribing across group members, adjusted group sizing arithmetic to permit groups of 3 to 5 when totals do not divide by 4 to 6, and added structured facilitation guidance.

[Collaborative Discussion Project](https://www.collaborativediscussionproject.com/items-1/36anticipatingimplicationsandunintentedconsequences)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/6-anticipating-implications-and-un-intended-consequences/