AI Assisted Guide
From Portfolio Design to Adaptive Decision Making
Beghetto, R. A. (2026). Possibilities planning and the minimal viable assessment: From portfolio design to adaptive decision making. Possibility Studies & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699261472572
How can teams plan for a future that is still being made? The article proposes possibilities planning, which involves maintaining a bounded portfolio, or manageable set, of distinct possibilities. A Minimal Viable Assessment (MVA) defines the minimum observable evidence that a possibility being tried is functioning.
Boundary constraints identify practical and ethical limits. Together, these can help teams judge whether to continue or change direction. They can also consider more demanding targets when the evidence supports them.
The argument at a glance
Choose a movement to explore.
Movement 01
Planning helps coordinate action, yet the future rarely unfolds as expected. Once teams invest resources and attach their identity to one approach, they may explain away warning signs. This can make changing direction harder when conditions call for it.
01 / The argument
Open a movement for a closer reading.
Planning helps coordinate action, yet the future rarely unfolds as expected. Once teams invest resources and attach their identity to one approach, they may explain away warning signs. This can make changing direction harder when conditions call for it.
The article begins with the gap between a plan and the conditions teams encounter. Minor gaps may allow adjustment. Larger ones may require teams to rethink both their actions and their understanding of the situation. Escalation of commitment occurs when teams invest more in an approach despite signs that it is struggling.
Past investments and social pressure can make change harder. So can looking mainly for evidence that confirms existing views. Possibility thinking helps teams imagine alternatives, but those ideas still need enough development to guide action. How can a team keep more than one possibility available and make timely decisions about which to pursue?
Introduction, pp. 1–3; single-plan trajectory, pp. 9–11.
Possibilities planning is a framework for teams to develop several actionable possibilities. Teams consider how each might hold up under different conditions and prepare enough detail to begin trying it. The alternatives remain loosely coupled, with limited dependence on one another. Keeping them at a low resolution, or early level of detail, can leave room to adapt them.
Teams begin by clarifying the challenge and who is affected. They consider constraints and guiding values, while seeking perspectives they may have missed. Assumption flips invite them to question what they have taken for granted. Considering other perspectives can also help them generate distinct possibilities.
Stress testing explores how each might succeed or fail. For promising options, a short action canvas records a rationale and a first step. It also includes an MVA and boundary constraints, which guide later decisions. An illustrative starting portfolio might include one possibility to try and two or three to keep in reserve.
Teams assign responsibility for review and can revisit earlier decisions as their understanding changes.
Introducing Possibilities Planning and Broad Design Features, pp. 3–5.
A Minimal Viable Assessment (MVA) specifies in advance the minimum observable evidence that a possibility being tried is functioning. Teams identify a critical failure point and turn it into a positive viability signal. They can set more demanding targets as evidence of viability develops.
Teams ask what a possibility most directly claims to do. They then identify an observable failure that would call for intervention. From that failure point, they develop a positive signal that can be tracked, along with progressively more demanding targets. In the article’s hypothetical mentoring example, the failure point is a mentee going more than two weeks without meeting an adviser.
The proposed MVA uses a weekly-contact threshold for every active mentee. Its progress targets rise from four consecutive weeks to eight, then a semester. Meeting this threshold provides an early indication of viability. Teams may still need closer investigation or broader evaluation to understand the possibility’s effects.
Developing the Decision Logic and Designing MVAs, pp. 6–12; Table 1, p. 11.
An MVA tracks whether a possibility is functioning. Boundary constraints identify limits on what counts as acceptable functioning. Teams specify an early observable sign that an otherwise viable possibility may be producing unacceptable consequences.
A possibility can meet its viability target and still produce unacceptable effects. In the article’s hypothetical voluntary AI-coding hackathon, continued participation is the viability signal. But what if students continue because teachers reward participation or pressure them to stay? These would be boundary warnings because the activity is intended to be voluntary.
The team would need to respond even if participation remained high. Stress testing can help teams anticipate such concerns before implementation. Drawing on Principled Innovation, the article asks teams to attend to whether a possibility functions and whether its effects on people and the wider system remain acceptable.
Boundary Constraints and Acceptable Viability, pp. 12–13.
Teams use the MVA and boundary constraints to guide decisions. Evidence of progress can support persistence, or continuing the current approach. Repeated failure despite diagnosis and revision calls for a pivot to a prepared alternative. Crossing a boundary also calls for a pivot. Sustained viability within the boundaries can support scaling through a more demanding target.
To persist is to continue the active possibility while watching for declining performance and boundary warnings. Repeated MVA failures call for diagnosis and attempted revision, with a pivot if viability remains inadequate. Crossing a boundary constraint also calls for a pivot. Prepared reserve possibilities give the team alternatives to consider.
Scaling involves raising the target to examine whether the possibility holds up over more time or under greater demands. In the article’s hypothetical doctoral mentoring portfolio, team mentoring is tried first. Peer circles and milestone advising remain in reserve. Each has a first step and an MVA, along with a boundary constraint and decision rules.
Even after scaling, a possibility remains open to revision.
Persisting, Pivoting, or Scaling Possibilities, pp. 13–15; Table 2, p. 14.
02 / Connecting ideas
A portfolio keeps alternatives available, while the team shares responsibility for the work. Relevant perspectives and practical knowledge help members judge what to try. Clear decision authority helps them coordinate their response as conditions change. (pp. 3–5.)
The MVA starts with a failure teams would need to recognize. They use it to agree on a viability signal before trying the possibility. This can make later judgments more explicit and reduce the temptation to redefine success after seeing the results. (pp. 6–12.)
When a team needs to pivot, it can turn to a reserve possibility with an identified first step and decision rules. Preparing alternatives during planning can make it easier to respond as conditions change during implementation. (pp. 5, 13–15.)
Teams decide how many possibilities they can maintain and what thresholds are appropriate. They also determine when to review progress and which consequences would be unacceptable. The signals help inform these judgments, and teams can revise them as the situation develops. (pp. 5, 12–16.)
03 / The conclusion
The article presents possibilities planning and the MVA as a way to connect possibility thinking with coordinated action. Teams prepare a manageable portfolio and agree on early evidence of viability. Boundary constraints help them consider acceptable effects as they decide whether to persist or pivot. Sustained progress may support scaling.
The framework remains provisional. Further research is needed to examine whether it improves decisions across settings and how teams adapt their signals as conditions change. (pp. 15–16.)
If you remember only this
Prepare several actionable possibilities and agree on early evidence of viability. Use that evidence, together with acceptable boundaries, to judge when to continue or change course.
One way to read the article is as a response to the difficulty of changing course after committing to one plan. A portfolio keeps alternatives available. The MVA helps teams agree on observable evidence of viability, while boundary constraints direct attention to acceptable consequences. These can inform decisions to persist or pivot, as well as when to raise the target through scaling.
The article offers a framework whose value needs to be examined and refined through use.
04 / Questions to carry forward
Questions for interpretation and further inquiry.
The article acknowledges that a single plan may serve stable contexts well. Maintaining alternatives takes time and resources. It also places demands on attention and coordination. Further research is needed to understand when the added flexibility justifies those demands and how many reserve possibilities a team can reasonably maintain. (pp. 15–16.)
A poorly chosen failure point may miss important parts of a complex situation. Possibilities can affect one another, and problems may emerge in several ways. The MVA offers an early indication of viability. Teams may need broader evaluation when that signal provides too little information. (pp. 6, 15–16.)
The MVA can make evidence and decision rules easier to discuss. Teams may still face pressure to persist because of past investments or unclear authority. Political and institutional expectations can also shape the decision. Whether the MVA helps teams change course at an appropriate time remains an empirical question. (pp. 6, 15–16.)