Practical policy workshops

Below are a range of simple policy workshops to help you coordinate and collaborate throughout the policy journey. WORKSHOP TITLE PURPOSE BEST FOR a. Policy Sprint Workshop Rapidly develop a policy proposal Team ideation and project kick-off b. Stakeholder Mapping Simulation Analyze and prioritize stakeholders Community engagement/ complex projects c. Impact Assessment Roleplay Evaluate proposals from diverse angles Multi-disciplinary teams d. Scenario Planning Exercise Prepare for uncertainty Strategic planning, risk management e. Policy Pitch and Critique Build pitching and feedback skills Presentations, internal review f. Lessons Learned Retrospective Reflect and improve Project close-out, team learning g. Problem Tree Analysis Diagnose root causes Early-stage problem exploration h. Ethical Challenge Hotseat Respond to dilemmas Integrity and values training i. Metrics and Measurement Hackathon Define success metrics Monitoring, evaluation and learning j. The Pre-Mortem Risk-assessment by scenario A creative way to manage policy risk a. Policy sprint workshop

Group Size: 4–8 |

Timing: 2–3 hours

Tips: Use creative constraints (e.g. budget, legal) to add a challenge and to look at policies another way.

Purpose: - Kick-start creative thinking and build a draft policy proposal under time pressure.

Learning Outcomes: - Synthesize policy issues, stakeholders, and solutions rapidly.

• Practice teamwork and concise communication.

Materials/Prep: - Adaptive Policy Lean Canvas (from

Policy journey templates

)

• Timer
• Whiteboard/virtual collaboration tool

Process:

1. Assign teams and give each a policy topic.
2. Teams use the Adaptive Policy Lean Canvas to define the policy purpose, intended future state (and how it is different from now), stakeholdersn and partners, intended benefits, and potential solutions/interventions (don’t worry about resourcing and risks for this exercise) (1 hour).
3. 15-minute internal review by another team.
4. Pitch the policy proposal back to the group (or to an external group if time allows) to get some early feedback (30 mins).
5. Debrief on learnings and adaptations (15 mins).

Debrief Prompts: - What surprised you?

• What frameworks helped?
• What would you do differently? b. Stakeholder mapping simulation

Group Size: 3–6 |

Timing: 1 hour

Tips: Use real or hypothetical examples

Purpose: - Build empathy and skill in understanding stakeholder landscapes.

Learning Outcomes: - Identify missing voices and conflicting interests.

• Use mapping tools to inform policy design.

Materials/Prep: - A stakeholder or environment map template (from

Policy journey templates

)

• Sample policy scenario

Process:

1. Present scenario and context.
2. Map stakeholder identities, interests, and influence.
3. Rank and overlay potential conflicts and alliances.
4. Share group map and discuss.
5. Across your team, get individuals to adopt a persona to talk from that perspective about the issue as an empathy exercise. Use this input later to establish an Actor Intention Map for each identified stakeholder category or persona.

Debrief Prompts: - Whose voice is most and least represented?

• How might these voices help shape the policy?
• How might you change your engagement approach based on the map? c. Impact assessment roleplay

Group Size: 4–10 |

Timing: 60-90 minutes

Tips: Rotate roles in repeat sessions

Purpose: - Practice evaluating a proposal from different disciplinary perspectives.

Learning Outcomes: - See policy impacts through multiple lenses.

• Build persuasion and compromise skills.

Materials/Prep: - Policy proposal draft (the Adaptive Policy Lean Canvas is fine, or whatever format you already have your policy proposal in)

• Role cards for participants (post-it notes are fine, pre-marked with different lenses. We recommend the following, but feel free to be creative:
• Environmental, Community Impact, Vulnerable Populations, Economic Prosperity (may be worth representing big and small businesses separately), National Security, Public Safety, Social Justice, International Context.

Process:

1. Assign each participant a role.
2. Review the proposal, noting impacts from your perspective.
3. Present key concerns and recommendations.
4. Group discussion to reconcile perspectives and draft a unified assessment.

Debrief Prompts: - What bias did your role introduce?

• How did you resolve conflicting priorities? d. Scenario sprint exercise

Group Size: 3–8 |

Timing: 1-2 hours

Tips: Encourage “wild card” scenario creation.

Purpose: - Prepare teams to anticipate and respond to uncertainty.

Learning Outcomes: - Develop future-focused thinking.

• Identify risks and strategies for adaptation.

Materials/Prep: - Future scenarios (pre-written or created during group brainstorm, you can use the Adaptive Policy Lean Canvas first section as a guide)

• Policy Intention template (from

Policy journey templates

)

Process:

1. Teams select or receive a policy topic.
2. Create 4-5 plausible future scenarios (including desirable and undesirable ones).
3. Map how the policy might adapt or fail under each scenario, using the Policy Intention template to flesh out intended impact for groups affected by the policy.
4. Identify any “no regrets” actions and risk mitigation strategies.

Debrief Prompts: - Which scenario felt most desirable, which felt more plausible?

• What gaps did you find in your original policy?
• What additional scenarios should be further explored, and with whom?

Note: we recommend you use the OPSI Innovation Facets to support future scenarios. You should be able to identify future states that are anticipatory, certainty, top down and bottom up. e. Policy pitch and critique

Group Size: 2-6 |

Timing: 1-2 hours

Tips: Try “Shark Tank” or “Dragon’s Den” formats for energy.

Purpose: - Build concise communication skills and structured feedback capacity.

Learning Outcomes: - Craft clear, short policy pitches.

• Deliver and receive constructive criticism.

Materials/Prep: - Pitch template or slide deck - you can google “pitch deck” for any number of templates. Consider the sort of information shared by startups or inventors pitching their ideas on TV.

• Panel (internal or guest)

Process:

1. Teams develop a short, 5-minute policy pitch using a pitch deck template.
2. Present to panel or group for feedback. Ideally there would be at least a few outsiders to the policy domain.
3. The panel/group scores each pitch with the criteria below, giving a score out of 10 for each: a) Clear alignment on the policy intent (impact and desirability) b) Feasibility (demonstrates how the policy might be implemented) c) Reflects different stakeholder and community needs (diversity and inclusion) d) Context (demonstrates knowledge of the policy environment, with ideas how to navigate and engage with the environment) e) Flair (high quality communication that convinces) f) Teams refine and re-present, if desired.

Debrief Prompts: - What made feedback useful?

• How can you use critiques to strengthen proposals?
• What surprised you in the feedback? f. Lessons learned retrospective

Group Size: Any |

Timing: 45–75 minutes

Tips: Use this after every major policy cycle.

Purpose: - Foster continuous improvement and knowledge sharing.

Learning Outcomes: - Analyze successes and failures methodically.

• Document insights for future projects.

Materials/Prep: - Policy Lessons Retrospective worksheet (see next page)

• Post-it notes/whiteboard

Process:

1. As all individuals to use post-it notes to capture what went well, what didn’t, and areas for improvement.
2. Group clusters by themes (e.g. communication, process, stakeholder management).
3. Document actions for next time.
4. Share summary with wider organisation

Debrief Prompts: - Which change will most improve your next project?

• What should be shared across teams? The Policy Lessons Retrospective template helps your team to think critically, constructively and to share insights and learning about what is working, what isn’t, and what actions could be adopted moving forward.

g. Problem tree analysis

Group Size: 2-8 |

Timing: 1 hour

Tips: Compare trees across teams for insight.

Purpose: - Diagnose problems and identify root causes visually.

Learning Outcomes: - Clarify the real drivers of issues.

• Identify targeted interventions.

Materials/Prep: - Problem tree template (see next page)

• Coloured pens

Process:

1. Define central policy issue.
2. Map branches: root causes below, effects above.
3. Explore connections and intervention points.
4. Share trees and discuss most actionable points.

Debrief Prompts: - What root cause surprised you?

• Which intervention might have the best leverage? The Problem Tree template helps your team to deconstruct and differentiate between causes and symptoms, working towards a clearer understanding of the core problem (or opportunity) to solve. This mitigates the risk of policy only addressing a symptom or cause without changing the outcome/impact.

h. Ethical challenge hotseat

Group Size: 3-10 |

Timing: 30-60 minutes

Tips: Use real, recent dilemmas if possible.

Purpose: - Prepare teams to handle ethical dilemmas under pressure.

Learning Outcomes: - Make defensible decisions with limited info.

• Use frameworks for ethical reasoning.

Materials/Prep: - Dilemma scenarios (describe or draw randomly)

Process:

1. Give the team time to create some ethical dilemma scenarios.
2. Present an ethical policy dilemma to an individual or group.
3. Give limited time to identify choices and defend a decision.
4. Compare solutions and rationales as a team.
5. Reflect on process and frameworks

Debrief Prompts: - Where did values conflict?

• How can frameworks guide future choices? i. Metrics and measurement hackathon

Group Size: 3-10 |

Timing: 1-2 hours

Tips: Gamify with prizes for innovative metrics.

Purpose: - Build hands-on skills in policy evaluation and

• data-driven improvement

Learning Outcomes: - Design robust metrics and KPIs.

• Plan for data collection and review.

Materials/Prep: - Policy case study

Process:

1. Teams select a policy initiative.
2. Define clear, measurable outcomes (the impact intended effectiveness of the policy agenda).
3. Identify key outputs from the relevant policy solutions/ interventions, and how they contribute directly or indirectly to the outcomes. Where outcomes are not clearly served by any outputs, identify potential new policy solutions/interventions.
4. Map data sources and monitoring plans for outcomes and outputs, including who owns what.
5. Identify targets for outcomes and outputs, KPIs and rationale.
6. Peer review to refine metrics.

Debrief Prompts: - Which metric(s) are most essential?

• What challenges could arise in measurement?
• What counter-indicators exist that could be monitored?
• What outputs might contradict outcomes and how might you ensure outputs don’t become more important that outcomes?
• Who monitors outcomes and are they independent enough from output owners to provide strategic advice to senior leaders? j. The Pre-Mortem

Group Size: Any |

Timing: 1 hour

Tips: Encourage participants to be creative in their destruction.

Purpose: - Create a list of risks in a way that escapes groupthink and is not overly driven by the plan

Learning Outcomes: - Risk management.

• Creative thinking.

Materials/Prep: - Timer

• Whiteboard and post-it notes/virtual collaboration tool
• Simple risk matrix (4 squares: major and low consequence; by likely and unlikely)
• Existing policy risk assessment

Process:

1. Set the scene: Your policy implementation has gone horribly wrong. The dismal results are featured on the front page news, or it has fallen so flat that you are not serving anyone. The minister is demanding answers.
2. Set a timer. Everyone writes out all the ways they can think of that the policy has gone wrong. (10 minutes).
3. Group like disasters together and then rank them according to a simple risk matrix. (10 minutes)
4. Review your risk assessment, are all the high-risk scenarios captured? Discuss how you can treat the risks.
5. Update your risk assessment and debrief.

Debrief Prompts: - Was there a common theme to your newly identified risks?

• Were there any gaps in your initial risk assessment that surprised you?