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: 34ba51ced1a554f90a5c334a42f87bcbe094b7ebe0e2c823a0dffe543a334778

# Mapping Complexity with a Fishbone Diagram

Small groups examine a complex scenario by categorizing its core dilemma, primary dimensions, and specific contributing factors onto a structured fishbone diagram. Groups then analyze tensions, contrast differences across teams, and identify missing perspectives.

**Time:** 60 minutes. 60 minutes matches the original activity breakdown (5+10+20+10+5+10 min); old public copy metadata incorrectly labeled this as 5-15 minutes.
**People:** 4 to 24. Small groups of 4 to 6 participants. When total headcount requires it, groups of 3 are acceptable.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Categorize competing dimensions and specific contributing factors of a complex situation into a visible fishbone structure before making decisions.
**Use it when:** Use when a team faces a messy or polarizing topic and risks either jumping to hasty solutions or getting paralyzed by details.
**Skip it when:** Skip when the group has a single straightforward mechanical fault with an obvious fix, or when people need quick personal check-ins rather than analytical debate.

## Materials and tools

- One printed scenario handout per participant
- One large fishbone diagram template (printed on poster paper or tabloid sheet) per small group
- Fine-tip markers or pens (one per participant)
- Painter tape or wall adhesive for posting diagrams
- Shared digital whiteboard template for remote or hybrid cohorts

## Before participants arrive

1. Print scenario handouts and fishbone diagram posters for each table.
2. Arrange room with small tables seating 3 to 6 people.
3. Set out markers and tape at each workspace.

## Say this to open

Complicated issues can easily overwhelm discussion. Groups often rush to quick fixes or freeze under the weight of details. Today we will map a scenario visually using a fishbone diagram. You will identify the core issue, break it down into four to six major dimensions, and map specific contributing factors onto the bones. Please follow along as we read our scenario.

## How to run it

### 1. Read the scenario (5 minutes)

Distribute the scenario handout. Ask one volunteer to read the scenario aloud while others read along silently. Allow 60 seconds for quiet review, then ask if anyone needs factual clarification before starting group work.

### 2. Explore dimensions in small groups (10 minutes)

Organize participants into groups of 4 to 6 (groups of 3 are fine if numbers require). Have each group pick a volunteer discussion facilitator to guide dialogue. Groups discuss the scenario using five prompts: What is the key issue and what is at stake? What are the primary dimensions to consider? Who are the stakeholders (affected, decision makers, helpers, influencers)? What are the benefits, costs, and trade-offs? What causes unease, discomfort, or unintended consequences? Stopping condition: 10 minutes expire.

### 3. Fill the fishbone diagram (20 minutes)

Give each group a fishbone template poster. Instruct groups to write a 1 to 3 word description of the primary issue in the head of the fish on the right side. Next, have them label 4 to 6 major dimensions on the main diagonal rib boxes (for example: Financial Costs, Staff Capacity, Community Equity, Regulatory Rules). Finally, have all group members write concrete details or contributing factors along the bones attached to each rib. Every member is invited to write directly on the poster.

### 4. Analyze tensions and prominent factors (10 minutes)

Keep participants in their small groups. Direct them to evaluate their completed diagram using three reflection questions: How does this diagram help us see the tension in the scenario? Which part seems most prominent or concerning? What are we seeing differently now, and what could we add? Groups mark their top two tension points with an asterisk or circled note.

### 5. Gallery walk (5 minutes)

Have each group post their diagram on the room wall. Direct all participants to walk around the room to inspect the other groups' diagrams, noticing different dimension choices and contrasting assessments.

### 6. Debrief full room (10 minutes)

Reconvene as a full room. Facilitate a structured conversation using the debrief questions. Limit contributions to 2 or 3 speakers per question to stay within the 10-minute window.


## Debrief questions

- What common themes or primary dimensions appeared across all diagrams, and where did groups diverge?
- Which part of the mapped issues represents the most acute tension or difficult trade-off?
- What perspective or hidden factor is still missing from our maps?
- How did categorizing factors visually change how you approached the problem compared to an open verbal debate?

**Finished output:** A completed fishbone diagram from each small group mapping the primary problem, 4 to 6 core dimensions, and specific contributing factors, with highlighted tension points.

## Remote

Conduct step 1 in the main video room using a shared screen for the scenario text. For steps 2 to 4, send participants into breakout rooms of 3 to 6 people with a link to an editable digital whiteboard featuring a fishbone graphic with pre-placed text boxes. For step 5, bring all participants back to the main room and give 5 minutes for individuals to browse the other breakout frames in the shared canvas. Run step 6 in the main room using raised-hand turns or chat entries.

## Hybrid

All small groups, both in-person and remote, complete their fishbone diagram on a shared digital whiteboard. In-person tables use a laptop at their table to edit the digital board. For the gallery walk, all participants browse the shared digital board frames simultaneously, ensuring fair visibility without manual photo uploads.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may contribute to discussion orally, write notes directly onto the poster, or suggest items for others to record.
- Any participant may pass on reading aloud or speaking during the whole-room debrief without explanation.

## If the session gets stuck

**A group gets stuck trying to agree on the single right way to label the fish head.**

Intervene and remind the group that the fish head needs only a short neutral description of the core topic (such as 'Transit Deficit Plan'), not a fully solved statement. Give them 60 seconds to pick a working title and move on.

**Participants jump straight to pitching solutions rather than diagnosing the complexity.**

Direct their attention back to the diagram structure. State that solutions come later; their current job is strictly mapping existing facts, constraints, and stakeholder interests onto the bones.


## Terms used here

- Fishbone diagram: A visual mapping graphic (also known as an Ishikawa or cause-and-effect diagram) shaped like a fish skeleton, used here to break a complex problem into main thematic ribs and detailed sub-factors.

## Participant material: Scenario Handout: Municipal Transit Dilemma

Scenario: Valley Transit is facing a 25% budget deficit due to declining ridership and rising maintenance costs. The transit authority board must decide whether to increase passenger fares by 40%, cut weekend and late-night bus routes that primarily serve service-industry workers, or reallocate general municipal tax funds that were previously designated for public park renovations. Local business owners want reliable late-night transit for staff. Park advocates argue that neighborhood greenspaces are vital for public health. Low-income rider coalitions warn that a fare hike will force residents out of employment. The board must reach an operational plan by next month.

## Participant material: Fishbone Diagram Instructions Worksheet

Fishbone Diagram Guide:
1. Head (Right Box): Write a 1-3 word description of the core issue or dilemma.
2. Ribs (Angled Spine Lines): Identify 4 to 6 major dimensions of the topic. Examples: Financial Costs, Operational Limits, Public Health, Community Equity, Regulatory Rules, Infrastructure.
3. Bones (Horizontal Offshoots): Add concrete details, constraints, stakeholder needs, or trade-offs connected to each major dimension.
4. Mark Tensions: Circle or mark with an asterisk the two areas where competing priorities create the sharpest conflict.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in the Collaborative Discussion Project library under '3.8 Mapping Complexity (Fishbone Diagram)'. The fishbone diagram format adapts Kaoru Ishikawa's classic cause-and-effect tool for open complex discussion.

Retained the core activity flow, timing, and prompts from the Collaborative Discussion Project resource. Reconciled the 60-minute duration based on the step-by-step math from the source. Added explicit group sizing rules for 4 to 24 participants, print-ready scenario and worksheet text, hybrid coordination steps using digital whiteboards across all settings, and concrete troubleshooting guidance.

[Collaborative Discussion Project](https://www.collaborativediscussionproject.com/items-1/38mappingcomplexity)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/8-mapping-complexity/