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: 0f768b1e7677ce3b6af146ec0f467b07a89e4deaa18bfe209949a0c22655bd74

# Min Specs

Participants draft every potential rule for a shared purpose, then systematically eliminate all non-essential items using a strict filtering question. The room consolidates the survivors into two to five non-negotiable minimum specifications.

**Time:** 50 minutes. Source recommends 35 to 50 minutes. This 50-minute plan provides sufficient time for robust plenary consolidation with larger groups.
**People:** 4 to 24. Individual reflection, breakout tables of 4 to 7 people, and whole-room plenary consolidation.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Reduce an overgrown set of rules down to two to five essential constraints tested against a specific, shared purpose.
**Use it when:** Use when a team is bogged down by excessive rules, launching an initiative that needs clear guardrails, or defining team agreements without micromanagement.
**Skip it when:** Skip when the group lacks an agreed purpose statement, lacks authority to change policies, or experiences low trust where fewer rules will be treated as zero accountability.

## Materials and tools

- 1 pre-written purpose statement displayed on a slide or flip chart
- 1 flip chart pad per table of 4 to 7 people
- 1 dark chisel-tip marker per participant (or digital annotation tools if remote)
- Scratch paper or notepad per participant
- Wall-safe tape or mounting adhesive for chart paper
- 1 digital timer

## Before participants arrive

1. Write the clear purpose statement on a visible chart or slide before starting.
2. Write the filtering question visibly: 'If we broke or ignored this rule, could we still achieve our purpose?'
3. Seat participants into small group tables of 4 to 7 people with scratch paper, flip chart paper, and markers ready at each table. If the room has an odd count like 5 or 7, keep them as a single table.

## Say this to open

Our purpose is posted here. For the next 60 seconds, write down on your scratch paper every rule, behavior, requirement, and condition you think we must do or must not do to succeed. Do not filter yourself yet. Ready, begin.

## How to run it

### 1. List Maximum Specifications (6 minutes)

Participants write silently on scratch paper for 1 minute while the timer runs. At the bell, direct participants to share and compile their points onto their table flip chart for 5 minutes. Tell tables to capture everything without debating or eliminating any rules yet. Stop when the timer sounds.

### 2. Filter Against Purpose (15 minutes)

Point to the posted filtering question. Direct each table to review their list item by item. Ask: 'If we broke or ignored this rule, could we still achieve our purpose?' If the answer is yes, strike the item out immediately with a marker. If a statement is vague like 'be collaborative', instruct them to rewrite it as a concrete observable action before deciding. Stop at 15 minutes.

### 3. Consolidate Surviving Rules (22 minutes)

Have each table post their surviving items on the wall. Allow 3 minutes for silent reading. Facilitate merging identical items on a central board. For disputed or unique items, call for a show of hands on the filtering question: 'Could we achieve our purpose without this?' If a majority raises hands indicating yes, strike it. Focus sharply on top overlaps first to ensure the final list reaches two to five constraints before time expires.

### 4. Confirm and Close (7 minutes)

Read the surviving master Min Specs list aloud. Check for consensus by asking if anyone cannot support working within these exact boundaries. Take up to two brief, one-sentence reflections from the room using the debrief prompts. Agree on a specific operational review date to reassess the rules after real-world use.


## Debrief questions

- Which rule was hardest to cross off, and what made it feel so essential?
- How do these two to five boundaries change your freedom to make decisions on the job?
- What observable warning sign would indicate we discarded a constraint too quickly?

**Finished output:** A visible, agreed list of two to five non-negotiable minimum specifications recorded on a master chart.

## Remote

Display the purpose statement on a shared digital whiteboard. In Step 1, participants create digital sticky notes independently, then merge lists within breakout rooms. In Step 2, small groups apply digital strikethroughs to eliminated items. In Step 3, bring all participants to the main canvas, cluster identical notes, and run rapid digital thumbs-up polls to finalize the two to five constraints.

## Hybrid

All participants, whether in the room or online, must view and edit the same shared digital board. In-person tables assign one person with a laptop to enter their table's sticky notes and strikethroughs. Project the live board in the physical room so remote and in-person participants evaluate identical text during Step 3 plenary consolidation.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may submit constraints in writing on paper, type them into a shared document, or state them verbally to a peer scribe.
- Any participant may pass on speaking during plenary consolidation without explanation.
- Provide high-contrast, large-print purpose statements and digital whiteboard zoom capability for visual clarity.

## If the session gets stuck

**Groups defend comfort habits or best practices as absolute minimum specifications.**

Ask: 'If an emergency forced us to skip this practice tomorrow, would our stated purpose completely collapse?' If the answer is no, instruct them to strike it out.

**Items are written as vague values like 'be transparent' rather than testable rules.**

Provide a concrete counter-example: transform 'be transparent' into 'post draft project plans in the public channel 48 hours before launch' so the rule can be verified as followed or broken.


## Terms used here

- Max Specs: Maximum Specifications; the exhaustive inventory of all possible rules, guidelines, and habits under consideration.
- Min Specs: Minimum Specifications; the bare minimum must-dos and must-not-dos required to achieve a purpose without over-restricting action.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in WorkshopBank, which attributes Min Specs to Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless within Liberating Structures, drawing on complexity science and simple rules work by Kathleen Eisenhardt, Paul Plsek, and Brenda Zimmerman.

Retained the Liberating Structures two-phase drafting and elimination mechanic documented in WorkshopBank. Aligned small group table ranges to 4 to 7 people as recommended by evidence for optimal filtering. Clarified that table formation occurs during setup, synchronized the opening script with the first timer interval, defined a concrete show of hands voting mechanism for consolidation, and limited final reflections to one sentence to protect closing time.

[WorkshopBank](https://workshopbank.com/tools/min-specs)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/min-specs-workshopbank/