To use your example, in a supply chain transformation project, where the consultant was using Advanced Management Consulting, the supply chain, procurement, finance, R&D, and other functions expressed 48 Barriers to a successful program and 13 concerns for Unintended consequences.

Barriers:
– They all agreed on 5 of them and quickly identified mitigating solutions.
– Of the 43 concerns (48-5) around which they were misaligned, they triaged 27 where they said: “We need to come to an agreement whether or not these are barriers.”
– Of these 27, 4 were invalidated, (insufficient reasoning was expressed to validate them even using virtual reasoning input forms.)
– 11 were validated and mitigating actions designed.
– The last 12 (27-4-11) were taken from “You think this is a barrier, well we don’t.” to “We all agree that will be a barrier.” then mitigating actions created.
i.e. Every concern was 1. surfaced, 2. validated, 3. misalignment reconciled, then 4. mitigated if valid.

The same process was used on the 13 concerns for Unintended consequences expressed as…”You want to do x. but if you do, that will hurt me/us/them in this way.”

The other key point here is that just working on one or two items is valuable but insufficient. The volume of Barriers and Unintendeds referenced above is typical. Facilitation that resolves single digit concerns feels good but rarely created genuine, full endorsement.

Great article.
Michael