--- title: "Thematic Committees" description: "Small specialized committees evaluate assigned proposals against standard criteria, rank them by priority, and present recommendations to the full assembly." last_updated: "2026-09-07" canonical: "https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/thematic-committees/" --- # Thematic Committees Small specialized committees evaluate assigned proposals against standard criteria, rank them by priority, and present recommendations to the full assembly. **Time:** 90 minutes. Source specifies 90 to 180 minutes. This 90-minute design is the compact baseline for evaluating two proposals per committee. **People:** 8 to 24. Two to four concurrent thematic committees of 4 to 6 people each. ## Choose this exercise **Purpose:** Produce prioritized proposal evaluations across distinct thematic areas using shared evaluation criteria. **Use it when:** Use when a large group has multiple project or policy proposals that require focused analysis by smaller groups with relevant expertise or interest. **Skip it when:** Skip when proposals are interdependent and cannot be divided into separate domains, or when the group has fewer than eight people. ## Materials and tools - Printed proposal briefs (two per committee, one copy per person) - Evaluation rubric sheets (one per proposal per committee) - 1 flipchart pad or shared whiteboard per committee - Marker pens (2 per committee) - Sticky notes (1 pad per committee) - Digital timer visible to the room ## Before participants arrive 1. Select 2 to 4 thematic categories (for example: Facilities, Operations, Community Outreach). 2. Assign 2 specific written proposals to each category before the session begins. 3. Set up separate table clusters or breakout areas for each committee. 4. Place proposal packets, evaluation rubrics, markers, and sticky notes at each table. ## Say this to open Welcome. Today we divide into thematic committees to evaluate specific proposals. Each committee will review two proposals assigned to its theme, score them using our standard criteria, and decide a priority ranking. At the end, every committee will deliver a three-minute briefing and a clear recommendation to the room. Please join your assigned committee table now. ## How to run it ### 1. Introduce scope and assign committees (10 minutes) Explain the overall session purpose, the themes, and the four criteria: impact, feasibility, sustainability, and cost-benefit. Direct participants to their committee tables (4 to 6 people per group). Ask each group to select one person to take notes and one person to present the final briefing. ### 2. Read and clarify proposals (15 minutes) Participants independently read their group's two assigned proposal briefs for 5 minutes. The committee then spends 10 minutes discussing clarifying questions about scope, objectives, and intended benefits. If questions cannot be resolved from the text, note them on the evaluation sheet as open assumptions. ### 3. Score against criteria (30 minutes) The committee evaluates both proposals using the supplied matrix. Score each proposal from 1 (low) to 5 (high) on Impact, Feasibility, Sustainability, and Cost-Benefit. Committee members compare individual impressions, discuss differences, and agree on a consensus or median score for each criterion. Record brief rationale notes for each score. ### 4. Prioritize and build recommendation (15 minutes) Each committee assigns a priority rating (High, Medium, or Low) to each proposal based on the total scores and notes. Write the recommendation, key strengths, and main risks on the flipchart sheet. Prepare a 3-minute spoken report. ### 5. Report back to assembly (12 minutes) Reconvene the full group. Each designated committee reporter presents their group's priority ratings and rationale in 3 minutes or less (maximum 4 committees). Limit audience questions to one clarifying question per presentation. ### 6. Debrief and capture actions (8 minutes) Facilitate a brief plenary discussion on patterns across themes and confirm next procedural steps for the evaluated proposals. ## Debrief questions - Which evaluation criterion created the most disagreement inside your committee, and how did you resolve it? - What cross-cutting risks or overlaps between themes appeared during the reports? - What additional information would your committee need before an actual funding or implementation decision? **Finished output:** Completed evaluation rubric sheets and flipchart priority summaries (High, Medium, or Low) for all reviewed proposals. ## Remote Set up video breakout rooms for each committee. Provide proposal briefs and evaluation rubrics via a shared spreadsheet or collaborative whiteboard with pre-built scoring tables. In step 5, reporters share their screen or paste summary ratings into the main room chat during their 3-minute report. ## Hybrid Form fully in-person committees and fully remote committees where possible to prevent split audio. Remote committees use shared digital sheets and present to the room via the main video feed. All completed rubric sheets are photographed or exported into a single shared drive folder immediately after step 4. ## Access and participation choices - Provide proposal briefs and evaluation rubrics in advance in accessible digital formats for screen readers. - Committee members may contribute verbally, write directly on the rubric sheet, or post notes without public speaking. - Anyone wishing to pass on presenting during the assembly report may delegate the spokesperson role without explanation. ## If the session gets stuck **A committee deadlocks over conflicting scores for a proposal.** Instruct the group to record individual scores and average them, then note the unresolved divergence in the comments section rather than stalling the review. **One dominant participant dictates the committee's priorities.** Remind the committee to do a silent round of individual scoring on paper or sticky notes before negotiating the group rating. ## Terms used here - Cost-benefit: Comparison of expected resources and effort invested against the practical value delivered. - Sustainability: The degree to which results, funding, or operations can continue effectively over time. ## Participant material: Committee Proposal Evaluation Rubric THEMATIC COMMITTEE EVALUATION RUBRIC Committee Name / Theme: Assigned Proposal Title: Committee Members: Designated Reporter: SCORING CRITERIA (Rate each 1 to 5: 1 = Very Low, 2 = Low, 3 = Moderate, 4 = High, 5 = Very High) 1. Impact (Score: __ / 5) How beneficial will this proposal be to the intended group? Notes / Evidence: 2. Feasibility (Score: __ / 5) Can it be realistically completed within available time, skills, and budget? Notes / Evidence: 3. Sustainability (Score: __ / 5) How will the benefits or operations be maintained over time? Notes / Evidence: 4. Cost-Benefit (Score: __ / 5) Is the anticipated return worth the required expenditure and effort? Notes / Evidence: TOTAL SCORE: ____ / 20 FINAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION (Check one): [ ] High Priority (Recommend immediate progress or funding) [ ] Medium Priority (Recommend progress if resources remain or after revisions) [ ] Low Priority (Do not recommend proceeding in current form) Top 2 Strengths: 1. 2. Top 2 Risks or Open Questions: 1. 2. ## Sources and adaptation Observed in Participatory Methods library under the title 'Thematic Committees'. Retained the source's thematic committee structure, 4-8 member small-group size, four analysis criteria (impact, feasibility, sustainability, cost-benefit), and three-tier prioritization mechanic. UWT fixed the duration at the minimum 90-minute baseline, created an explicit evaluation rubric template, added strict per-step timing, capped committee size at 6 to fit group arithmetic up to 24, and established structured presentation limits for the whole-group report. [Participatory Methods](https://participatorymethods.com/activities/thematic-committees/) Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/thematic-committees/