Case Study · 04
Three Futures Framework
An executive decision-support document I researched, designed, and authored for a governing board of sixteen as they navigated a major institutional transition. The framework translated a complex denominational landscape into a structured, comparable analysis that equipped leadership to move from deliberation to decision.
The Situation
After voting to disaffiliate from their denomination of seventy years, the organization's governing board faced a consequential question: what comes next? Three viable paths existed—remaining independent, or affiliating with one of two historic Reformed denominations. Each option carried distinct implications for governance structure, theological identity, financial obligations, and long-term institutional health.
The board needed to make this decision with incomplete information, under time pressure, and with a community of 300+ members watching. The risk of a poorly structured process was significant: factional decision-making, analysis paralysis, or a choice made on instinct rather than evidence.
What I Built
I designed a comparative analysis framework that evaluated each path across a consistent set of dimensions. Each option received identical treatment—same questions, same depth, same format—so the board could compare laterally without one path receiving more narrative weight than another.
Every row a question, every column an option
Overview
Organizational history, scale, and structure of each path
Benefits & challenges
Argued at equal depth for every option—no thumb on the scale
Confessional alignment
Theological identity, similarities, and points of friction
Local context
Practical implications for a 300-member community in Ann Arbor
The framework also addressed the most common objection preemptively: the opening section explains why these three options and not others, grounding the scope in practical and theological reasoning rather than leaving it to assumption. As the board's understanding evolved, the document was expanded into a Five Futures version.
The Design Decisions
I chose a spreadsheet format deliberately. The board didn't need a narrative document that guided them toward a conclusion—they needed a tool that let them evaluate options on their own terms. The grid structure made lateral comparison intuitive: a board member could scan across a single row and see how all three paths answered the same concern.
The writing is precise and even-handed. Each option is described in the same register—no option receives more enthusiasm or more caution than another. The goal was a document any board member could trust, regardless of which direction they were leaning.
Not a document that argues for an answer—a tool that makes a good answer possible.
What This Demonstrates
This project shows strategic communications at its most consequential: translating complex, high-stakes information into a format that enables good decision-making. It's research, information architecture, and editorial discipline combined in a single deliverable—exactly the work that defines internal communications and change management roles.
The full document is available on request.