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: e898d9ce14e1e445240dc75cba708e2c28085e3b0790ecbbfb45243a8140706a

# Building Partnerships

Two matched teams roleplay both sides of an alliance, mapping their offered assets, desired value, and exchange activities on paired canvases. They negotiate across the table to verify mutual value and define concrete next steps.

**Time:** 65 minutes. Adapted from Gamestorming duration (60 to 90 minutes) to a focused 65-minute run sheet.
**People:** 4 to 20. Paired teams of 2 to 5 people facing each other (multiples of 2 teams).

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Test the alignment between what an organization wants from an external partner and what it must give in return.
**Use it when:** Use during strategic planning when scoping a new joint venture, vendor partnership, or cross-sector alliance before entering formal negotiations.
**Skip it when:** Skip when exploring internal team communication or when the core business model of the initiative is completely undefined.

## Materials and tools

- Two Partnership Canvas templates per paired group (A3 or flipchart size)
- Sticky notes (two distinct colors per pair)
- Fine-tip markers (one per participant)
- Painter's tape

## Before participants arrive

1. Print or draw two Partnership Canvas templates for each paired group.
2. Label one canvas 'Our Organization' and the second 'Partner Candidate'.
3. Arrange seating so paired teams sit facing each other with wall or table space between them.

## Say this to open

Partnerships only hold up when both organizations gain clear value. Today we will test a potential partnership by splitting into two perspectives: one group will represent our organization, and the other will step into the shoes of the partner candidate. You will each map what you need, what you offer, and how value transfers, then negotiate across the table.

## How to run it

### 1. Define intent and select candidate (10 minutes)

State the strategic goal for seeking an external partner. Have the room brainstorm candidate organizations on sticky notes. Group and choose one candidate per paired team. Divide participants into paired teams of 2 to 5 people: Side A (Our Organization) and Side B (Partner Candidate). Odd participants join an existing side as a designated observer or scribe.

### 2. Draft perspective canvases (20 minutes)

Side A and Side B work separately without consulting each other. Each team fills their canvas using sticky notes across four blocks: Desired Value (what they want), Offered Assets (what they can provide), Transfer Activities (how the exchange happens), and Created Value (the new benefit unlocked). Stop when both canvases have at least one concrete note per block.

### 3. Negotiate and mirror perspectives (20 minutes)

Bring Side A and Side B together facing their canvases. Side A presents their offer and desires in 3 minutes. Side B presents theirs in 3 minutes. The teams mirror the two sides: does Side A's offered asset truly match what Side B desires, and vice versa? Teams move, rewrite, or remove sticky notes to reconcile differences and reach a realistic exchange agreement.

### 4. Evaluate fit and determine actions (15 minutes)

Both sides jointly evaluate the agreed canvas against two criteria: Does the resulting value justify the operational effort? Are cultural or technical gaps manageable? Document agreed next steps, owners, and open questions on the bottom margin of the canvas. Gather the whole room to hear one primary insight from each paired table.


## Debrief questions

- Where did the two sides identify immediate alignment in value?
- Which desired asset or activity exposed an unrealistic expectation?
- What is the single most critical assumption we need to validate directly with the external partner?

**Finished output:** A reconciled bilateral Partnership Canvas showing matched assets, transfer activities, and agreed next steps.

## Remote

Create paired breakout rooms with shared digital whiteboard canvases (e.g., Miro or Mural). Side A and Side B populate separate frames for 20 minutes, then combine into one shared room with screen sharing to mirror notes and negotiate.

## Hybrid

Assign in-person participants to one side and remote participants to the partner side, or create entirely remote and entirely in-person pairs. Remote groups use a shared digital board mirrored onto a room display for negotiation.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may contribute via silent sticky-note writing rather than verbal roleplay.
- Anyone may opt out of active roleplay by serving as the objective scribe tracking trade-offs.

## If the session gets stuck

**The team roleplaying the partner candidate defaults to being too cooperative.**

Instruct Side B to protect their business interests and challenge whether Side A's offer is worth their effort.

**Teams disagree fundamentally on what an asset is worth.**

Note the gap on a pink sticky note as an unverified assumption to test directly in exploratory partner meetings.


## Terms used here

- Partnership Canvas: A visual framework mapping desired assets, offered value, transfer activities, and created value between two entities.
- Mirroring: The deliberate check comparing what one side offers directly against what the other side says it needs.

## Participant material: Partnership Canvas Layout

Prepare four quadrants on a sheet:
1. Desired Value: What specific resources, market access, or capabilities do we need from them?
2. Offered Assets: What unique resources, expertise, or reach can we legitimately provide?
3. Transfer Activities: What joint operational tasks are required to move value back and forth?
4. Created Value: What new strategic advantage or revenue emerges if this succeeds?

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Gamestorming, where the method is attributed to Bart Doorneweert and Ernst Houdkamp (Value Chain Generation).

Retained the 4-step negotiation structure and bilateral mirroring mechanic documented by Bart Doorneweert and Ernst Houdkamp on Gamestorming. UWT added explicit timing allocation (65 minutes), standardized canvas quadrants, remote/hybrid rules, and structured debrief prompts.

[Gamestorming](https://gamestorming.com/building-partnerships)

[Gamestorming](https://gamestorming.com/building-partnerships/)

[SessionLab](https://www.sessionlab.com/methods/building-partnerships)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/building-partnerships/