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: f57bb4b1dc00b3eba692a7bbb56c0cf0e23b8fe6f86e2381122a4e0dfa556db6

# Mission Impossible

Teams redesign an existing product, service, or process after removing a core baseline dependency. Groups build practical workarounds on posters and pitch their concepts back to the room.

**Time:** 50 minutes. Source suggests 45 to 60 minutes. UWT standard plan sets 50 minutes for up to 6 small groups.
**People:** 4 to 24. Small groups of 2 to 4 participants. At group_min of 4, form 2 pairs or 1 group of 4. At group_max of 24, form 6 groups of 4. For 13 people, form 3 groups of 3 and 1 group of 4. Maximum 6 presenting groups in all room configurations.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Expose hidden assumptions and generate workarounds by deliberately removing a core resource, dependency, or standard operating condition.
**Use it when:** Use during redesign or ideation phases when a team is stuck in conventional thinking, defending obsolete requirements, or facing entrenched trade-offs.
**Skip it when:** Skip when a team needs an immediate, compliant plan within strict regulatory deadlines, or when the working group does not understand the baseline system well enough to alter it.

## Materials and tools

- 1 main front flipchart pad or whiteboard for the facilitator
- 1 flipchart pad or large poster sheet per small group
- 2 broad-tip markers per small group
- 1 marker for the facilitator
- 1 roll of masking tape or adhesive putty
- 1 pre-printed challenge prompt sheet per small group
- Countdown timer

## Before participants arrive

1. Formulate one specific target challenge question in advance (for example, 'How do we deliver our weekly service with zero staff on duty?' or 'How do we operate our mobile tool without an internet connection?').
2. Write the question boldly on the front flipchart or whiteboard.
3. Distribute poster paper, markers, and printed prompt sheets to each team table.

## Say this to open

Today we tackle Mission Impossible. We often accept basic constraints without questioning why they exist. For the next 25 minutes, your team will design a working concept under an extreme rule that seems to break our normal model. Your task is not to complain about the limitation, but to build a functional approach that thrives because of it.

## How to run it

### 1. Introduce challenge and prompts (5 minutes)

Read the challenge question aloud. Point to the printed analysis prompts. Clarify that proposals can rethink sequencing, eliminate steps, or introduce substitute resources. For example, if a browser cannot use the internet, it might rely entirely on peer to peer local caches or preloaded physical drives. Opening script runs during this step.

### 2. Develop impossible solutions (25 minutes)

Small groups work in parallel. They analyze what causes the conflict, examine customary assumptions, and sketch out at least one concrete proposal on their poster sheet. Walk the room to ensure groups do not dismiss the premise as unworkable.

### 3. Pitch approaches (12 minutes)

Each group uses masking tape to post their poster on the wall. Groups pitch their concept to the room in 2 minutes or less. They explain how their approach circumvents the constraint and what unexpected benefits appear. Run a strict 2-minute timer per team for up to 6 groups.

### 4. Debrief and harvest (8 minutes)

Facilitate a full-room debrief using the prepared questions. Keep each response to 1 minute to collect 3 to 4 concise spoken contributions. Record emerging assumptions and viable concepts on the main front board.


## Debrief questions

- Which customary assumptions turned out to be habits rather than hard requirements?
- What surprising advantages or features emerged once the core dependency was removed?
- What single element from your impossible concept could we test next week?

**Finished output:** A set of concept posters detailing workarounds for an extreme operational constraint, alongside a harvested list of actionable assumptions.

## Remote

Run in video breakout rooms of 2 to 4 people. Provide a shared digital canvas pre-populated with the challenge question and prompt sheet. Team members contribute directly to the board simultaneously while one volunteer shares their screen. Return to the main room for 2-minute pitches via screen share.

## Hybrid

Seat in-person participants together and assign remote participants to dedicated virtual breakout rooms. Remote teams post concepts on a shared digital board while in-person teams photograph their physical flipchart and upload it immediately so both cohorts review pitch materials simultaneously.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants choose their working roles inside groups, such as sketching, note-taking, or speaking during the pitch.
- Anyone who prefers not to speak publicly may pass the pitch to a teammate and support the poster instead.

## If the session gets stuck

**A group insists that the problem is literally insoluble and refuses to ideate.**

Ask: 'If you were forced to operate under this rule tomorrow or shut down permanently, what would your first emergency workaround be?'

**Pitches run long and exceed the allotted time.**

Set a visible 2-minute timer for each pitch and sound a chime at 90 seconds.


## Terms used here

- Customary assumption: A baseline rule, dependency, or process step treated as mandatory simply because it is standard practice.

## Participant material: Challenge Prompts Sheet

Mission Impossible Analysis Prompts:

1. What new benefits or features might emerge from this constraint?
2. Why is this a typical requirement? Is it a true physical law, or just customary practice?
3. What core elements are in direct conflict?
4. Can the conflicting elements be eliminated, replaced, or altered?
5. Can something happen before or after the event to remove the bottleneck?
6. Can shifts in time, space, materials, or environment solve the problem?

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Gamestorming and SessionLab. Gamestorming attributes the method to James Macanufo.

Retained the defining mechanic, core challenge framing, and six analytical prompts documented in Gamestorming. Structured group formats explicitly from 2 to 4 members to support groups of 4 cleanly. Added specific facilitator materials for the main board, added explicit poster mounting instructions using tape, and framed debrief time limits to protect the 50-minute agenda.

[Gamestorming](https://gamestorming.com/mission-impossible)

[Gamestorming](https://gamestorming.com/mission-impossible/)

[SessionLab](https://www.sessionlab.com/methods/mission-impossible-ofghxy)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/mission-impossible/