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: 55037e849ff2f9307a6885b46324d41b84552552b09fd2c8bf8fe47befacfed3

# Min Specs

Participants draft an exhaustive list of rules and requirements for a stated purpose, then test and eliminate every rule that is not strictly essential. The result is a short list of non-negotiable must-dos and must-not-dos.

**Time:** 45 minutes. Based on the 35 to 50 minute range in Liberating Structures sources, structured here as a 45-minute session.
**People:** 4 to 24. Individual drafting, small groups of 4 to 7 participants, and whole-room consolidation

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Determine the minimum essential rules required to achieve a specific objective while eliminating non-essential restrictions.
**Use it when:** Use when a team faces operational bottlenecks, over-complicated procedures, or needs clear guardrails for independent decision-making.
**Skip it when:** Skip when the operating environment is tightly bound by legal or life-critical protocols that cannot be pruned locally, or when the group lacks an agreed clear purpose statement.

## Materials and tools

- 1 shared display board or wall space
- Pad of sticky notes per table of 4 to 7
- 1 fine-tip marker per participant
- A pre-written, visible purpose statement displayed prominently
- Digital whiteboard and video conferencing with breakouts (for remote or hybrid delivery)

## Before participants arrive

1. Write the core purpose statement clearly at the top of the room board.
2. Arrange chairs around small tables for groups of 4 to 7 people.
3. Distribute sticky notes and markers to each table.

## Say this to open

Look at the purpose statement on the board. We often burden our work with extra rules that we assume are required. Today we will list every perceived rule, and then cut anything that is not strictly mandatory. Write silently for two minutes, one rule per sticky note: what are all the must-do and must-not-do rules you believe we need to follow to achieve this purpose?

## How to run it

### 1. Generate maximum specifications (6 minutes)

Deliver the opening script. Participants write rules silently for 2 minutes, one rule per sticky note. For the remaining 4 minutes, small groups combine their notes on their table, remove direct duplicates, and add any missing rules to compile their initial list of Max Specs.

### 2. Test and prune within subgroups (15 minutes)

Subgroups evaluate each rule against the purpose statement using one strict test: 'If we broke or ignored this rule, could we still achieve our purpose?' If the answer is yes, take the note off the table and set it aside. Retain only the rules where breaking them guarantees failure. Aim to reduce your table list to 3 or 4 essential candidate rules.

### 3. Consolidate whole-room minimum specifications (19 minutes)

Invite Table 1 to read their top candidate rule. Ask the room: 'If someone broke this rule, could our purpose still succeed?' If anyone offers a realistic counterexample, discard the rule. If none can bypass it, post it to the main board. Cycle through Table 2, Table 3, and so on, taking one rule per table each round. Stop once the group reaches two to five shared Min Specs or candidates are exhausted.

### 4. Debrief and confirm guardrails (5 minutes)

Review the final list of Min Specs together on the main board. Ask the group the debrief questions to confirm mutual understanding and identify immediate operational changes. Take up to three total room responses.


## Debrief questions

- Which pruned rule felt hardest to discard, and why?
- How will operating under only these remaining rules change your day-to-day choices?
- What is the first practice we should stop doing immediately based on this list?

**Finished output:** A final shared list of two to five non-negotiable must-dos and must-not-dos for the stated purpose.

## Remote

Display the purpose statement on a shared digital whiteboard. In Step 1, participants write digital notes individually, then join breakout rooms of 4 to 7 to merge duplicates. In Step 2, breakouts move non-essential items to an archive zone and appoint a spokesperson. In Step 3, spokespersons take turns proposing surviving rules on the central board, using chat reactions to vote on whether breaking the rule breaks the purpose.

## Hybrid

Maintain one shared online whiteboard as the single source of truth. Group remote participants together in virtual breakouts of 4 to 7 and in-person participants at physical tables. Have in-person tables appoint a digital scribe to mirror their table notes onto the online canvas so remote and present participants see identical lists during whole-room consolidation.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may submit rules in writing via sticky notes without speaking aloud.
- Any participant may pass during verbal debates or serve as a table recorder.

## If the session gets stuck

**Participants defend personal best practices or preferences as mandatory rules.**

Remind the room of the test: ask for a realistic concrete counterexample where the purpose succeeded even though that specific rule was bypassed. For example, a team whose purpose is to produce accurate weekly financial reports might claim: 'We must use software template X.' If an emergency report drafted in a clean spreadsheet met all accuracy and audit needs, the software requirement is a preference, not a Min Spec. If bypassing the rule does not break the purpose, discard it.

**The final list still contains 10 or more items after consolidation.**

Run a rapid elimination round: ask each table to identify the one rule on the board that, if removed, causes the least direct damage to the core purpose. Strike it out and repeat until 2 to 5 remain.


## Terms used here

- Max Specs: The maximum list of all perceived rules, policies, habits, and requirements that people follow or think they must follow.
- Min Specs: The bare minimum set of enabling rules, both must-dos and must-not-dos, that are strictly non-negotiable to achieve a goal.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Liberating Structures materials by Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless, referencing earlier complexity work by Kathleen Eisenhardt and Paul Plsek.

Retained the core mechanic from Liberating Structures (generating Max Specs, pruning against purpose, and consolidating to Min Specs). Set subgroup sizing to 4 to 7 participants. Added a per-table cap of at most 3 to 4 candidate rules in Step 2 and a disciplined single-rule rotation in Step 3 to ensure whole-room consolidation finishes within the 45-minute window.

[Liberating Structures](https://www.liberatingstructures.com/14-min-specs/)

[Liberating Structures Menu](http://www.liberatingstructures.com/14-min-specs/)

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