Show Notes
Since you're reading this, I suspect you also think workshops are an excellent way to bring people together to collaborate, address complex challenges, and come to impactful conclusions. However, as we all know, a great workshop takes more than throwing people in a room with a vague direction and expecting them to make magic happen. Without clear aims and objectives, workshops can quickly become unfocused, with much of that latent potential being wasted. To avoid that, there is one question that will set you off in the right direction. "What will you be able to do after?". Nine times out of ten, the answer is something along the lines of "The whole team will be aligned". You'll notice that this doesn't answer the question. Today we will look at how you can lay the foundation for success by defining your goals and building towards your outcomes.
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit facilitationstudio.substack.com
More from The Facilitation Studio
Dialogue, discussion, debate Some people don’t drift into the wrong conversation in a workshop. They walk in already having it. This one starts with Graham, a lead architect whose arms fold the moment someone questions the tech stack. I unpick the three modes a group can talk in (dialogue, discussion and debate) using a kitchen to tell them apart: rummaging in the fridge, tasting as you go, and the judges’ table. Then the practical bit: why experts push for debate too early, the “what would need to be true?” question that lets them contribute without putting their record on trial, why a horseshoe chamber didn’t stop the Scottish Parliament debating, and the line I use to tell a room which conversation we’re having. Plus the most tempting mistake I make, and how to hold the line when the loudest voice wants to skip straight to the verdict. Chapters 00:00 Graham arrives with the cake already baked01:41 Three kinds of conversation03:15 Why experts push for debate too early04:16 Telling the room what we’re cooking07:00 Holding the line08:18 Who’s the Graham in your next room?
Before you say yes A leader has made a decision and wants the team involved. You design a proper workshop. Then you ask the sponsor what will actually change based on what people say, and they pause — "we're fairly committed to the direction, we just want the team to feel heard." You've just been handed a brief to perform a workshop, not run one. This episode looks at the hidden cost of running workshops that shouldn't have been workshops — the slow draining of what I call collaborative capital, and how it shows up as consultation fatigue. I name three signals that a brief is already decided (a sponsor advocating for a specific outcome, a timeline that doesn't leave room for the workshop to matter, and the word validate). Then a way out: reframing the brief around the questions that are genuinely still open — what would need to be true for this to work, what's the impact on your team, where are the gaps only you would know about — so you can give the sponsor something more valuable than the workshop they originally asked for. Chapters - Opening — the brief that's already decided- Collaborative capital and consultation fatigue- Three signals: outcome advocates, impossible timelines, the word "validate"- Finding the real question- What you protect when you reframe
Mapping is how you get all of your collaborators on the same page, speaking the same language and ready to work together productively. It's how you build the shared picture that the rest of the workshop runs on top of. This is the first of four deep-dives into the workshop activity types — Dream, Map, Distil, Prioritise — picking up from issue #7 (the four types) and issue #22 (the Butterfly that links them). I get into why mapping has to be an active thing the group does together rather than something presented at them, what the spectrum of mapping tools actually looks like (from immersive service safaris at one end to a quietly-handled empathy map template at the other), the three ways it most often goes sideways (rabbit-holing, treating an outlier as gospel, and pretending the gaps in the map don't exist), and how you know when you've done enough. There's a pre-mapping checklist at the end you can steal. We cover: [~00:00] Opening — what Map is actually for [~02:00] Why you do it together — cognition, memory, and the collective notebook [~04:30] What it looks like in practice — the spectrum from service safari to empathy map [~07:00] Three things to watch out for — rabbit-holing, mole-hills into mountains, missing gaps [~09:30] Doing just enough mapping — knowing when to stop, and the playback ritual [~11:30] A checklist to take into your next mapping phase Links Service safari — https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/service-safari Empathy mapping (Nielsen Norman Group) — https://www.nngroup.com/articles/empathy-mapping/ issue #7 — The four things you can do in a workshop issue #22 — The Butterfly Process [paste Substack URL at publish]
The Butterfly is the mental model I use to understand how workshops actually move. Two wings, active work and reflective work, and a single point at the centre that every transition passes through without exception. In this episode I walk through what that centre point actually looks, sounds, and feels like in practice. I also explain why the Butterfly and the Double Diamond aren't competing frameworks, they're doing different jobs. One is your compass. One is your collaborators' map. Sections [~00:00] Opening — the blur vs. the purposeful workshop [~02:30] Introducing the Butterfly [~05:00] What a Reflect point actually looks like [~10:00] Where the Butterfly came from — the Double Diamond and its cousins [~13:30] Working with the Butterfly in practice Links mentioned The Double Diamond — The Design Council's framework for design and innovation Issue #7: Dream, Map, Distil, Prioritise Issue #21: The whisk, the recipe, and knowing how to cook
Ever watched someone run a Design Sprint on a three-year strategy question? Every step executed perfectly. Entirely wrong outcome. That's not a facilitation problem — that's a vocabulary problem. In this episode I'm unpacking a distinction that I think sits at the heart of getting better at this work: the difference between a tool, a method, and a process. They're not the same thing, they don't do the same jobs, and mixing them up is one of the most common reasons workshops fail to deliver. We use a kitchen analogy to work it out. A whisk is a tool. A Victoria sponge recipe is a method. Knowing how to cook is a process. And — crucially — no amount of perfect recipe-following will get you an omelette. In this episode: Why tools are only powerful in combination, and in the right moment What makes a method brilliant — and when it becomes a liability The difference between following a process and understanding one Why two facilitators with identical tools and methods will still run completely different sessions (that's the seasoning) Whether you actually need to understand process at all — or whether mastering one good method is entirely the right ambition Resources mentioned: Hyper Island Toolbox Interaction Design Foundation FigJam Community Templates Liberating Structures Sprint by Jake Knapp Practical Facilitation by Dr Christine Hogan Gamestorming by Dave Gray Read the full article at facilitationstudio.substack.com What's in your toolkit? And is there a method you swear by, or one you've seen spectacularly misapplied? I'd love to hear — drop me a message or leave a comment on the Substack.