Running a Workshop
Model-based workshops can be effective if run properly. But they can fail to produce results if challenging personalities prevail. A good model-based workshop requires planning, including work before the workshop starts. A good model-based workshop involves multiple people filling different roles in the workshop itself. And the workshop facilitator must be ready with countermeasures when difficult situations arise, to ensure that the modeling effort is a success and the sponsor gains the expected results. This chapter explains how to run an effective model-based workshop.
In Chapter 8 we described workshops and explored the role of a model-based workshop. In this chapter we focus on how to run a model-based workshop: how to prepare, what to do during the workshop, and what to do afterwards.
A Model-Based Workshop Example
As you recall from Chapter 8, the Mykonos CFO—Dan Massa—is concerned about the delays experienced by diners at Portia. Dan would like to explore using a restaurant paging system to both reduce those delays and improve the diner experience. In the past when Dan has proposed pagers to his colleagues on the Mykonos management team, they dismissed the idea as inconsistent with the high-end image of their restaurants. But recently they have become more receptive as they begin to notice the use of pagers at fancier restaurants—restaurants they consider their competition.
So Dan has tasked two employees in his organization with analyzing the costs of rolling out pagers at Portia. Their analysis is based on the costs incurred at Elma, another Mykonos restaurant that has already implemented pagers. Elma has a different clientele than Portia; Elma is popular with families, whereas Portia is a more typical Mykonos restaurant with a clientele of adults looking for high-end food.
You are not sure a pager system will fix Portia’s problems or fit with its operations. You realize that the question is larger than technology or its cost. Mykonos management needs to understand how pagers will fit the Portia business processes and whether they are consistent with Mykonos strategies and goals. You would like to run a model-based workshop to further explore these issues and ultimately to build the business case for pagers if they look promising.
Now you need approval and buy-in for the workshop itself from your intended sponsors, the Mykonos management team. You must convince them to support the modeling effort. You pitch a model-based workshop using a short presentation detailing the reasons that the workshop will be useful. You cover what a model-based workshop will accomplish, who will be involved, and how long it will take. In the presentation you include a model value analysis (as described in Chapter 7) detailing the costs and benefits of creating business models for analyzing these questions.
You also prepare a scope chart, more for your own benefit in managing the workshop than for your sponsors. The scope chart captures the breadth and depth of modeling that will be covered in the workshops. Figure 9.1 shows the scope chart you create.
The modeling effort will focus on the two restaurants: Elma—already with pagers—and Portia. It will focus on the diner experience—the business process where diners experience delays.
After you receive the sponsor backing, you produce a detailed workshop plan. Mykonos management would like to know some details about the model-based workshops. How many are needed? How long will they take? How much will they cost? Will employees be disrupted? How many employees will be involved?
You call people you know at Portia so that you can understand how many people work there and how many business processes they support. With this knowledge you plan a sequence of three workshops. First you will hold a half-day workshop with Dan Massa and the finance organization so that you can understand their goals, approaches, and drivers. The second workshop is with Elma employees, to capture the business processes and organization of a restaurant that uses pagers. You estimate that second workshop will take a whole day. The third workshop is with employees of Portia, and it will take two whole days. Day 1 is to be spent on capturing as-is models, including the strategy and motivations of the restaurants, their organization, and their business processes. On day 2 you will evaluate the to-be models and compare the as-is and the to-be.
In your calls you identify who is to be present at each workshop and you check availability. You also have a timing dependency: the Elma workshop must occur before the Portia workshop. You schedule the workshops and create a detailed project plan.
Once your plan is approved, you execute it. You prepare for the workshop, collecting material. Finance provides you with their cost analysis of the pager systems. You call the restaurants and discover how they are organized, learn about their mission and goals, and collect their training booklets. You also get the pager system manuals from the vendor.
You work with a modeler to prepare preliminary organizational, process, and business motivation models based on your interpretation of the material you collected. You plan to use the models during the workshop if needed to help guide the discussion. You also schedule a scribe to support you during the workshops.
You talk to the general managers of Elma and Portia, explaining your plans and asking for their support. They commit to identify the subject matter experts you need. Together you work out a schedule for the workshops.
Once all your pre-work is completed, you finalize preparation for the workshops. You confirm that everyone can still attend the workshops and that an appropriately equipped conference room has been reserved. You need a white board, a projector and sufficient space for eight people.
You conduct all three workshops. You facilitate all three, with the modeler and scribe supporting you. You run the workshop according to the steps presented in Chapter 8: you make introductions, review the agenda, introduce the modeling concepts the model disciplines, and the model elements. Then you model.
After each workshop you meet with your scribe and modeler. You combine your notes, perform model cleanup and modify the models based on the notes. After the third workshop you meet again to consolidate everything you learned.
When you create the business process models during the workshops you ask how long each activity takes, who performs it, and you identify the delays—all the detail important for a business process simulation. The modeler creates a simulation to explore efficiency, resource utilization, and cost. The simulation allows you to evaluate whether the pagers reduce the delays that diners experience. (See more on simulations in Chapter 11.)
After each of the three workshops, you conduct a verification session, a two-hour meeting to verify the model. During the workshops the participants saw the models as they were created. The models were messy: sequence flows were crossed and it was not easy to see everything on a single page. Now the models have been cleaned up and are simple and attractive. Model elements are neatly placed. Each model element is described using the notes taken during the workshop. As you verify, you move through the model, clicking on elements, showing the participants what the description says and making changes in real time. You also present the simulation results. Some results are surprising and cause the participants to rethink the activity times and delays they originally provided.
The model verification sessions are shorter than the workshops. The participants are already familiar with the model they helped create. The purpose of the verification is to show them the final model and to ensure that your team did not misinterpret something or introduce errors. It also gives the participants a chance to review what they previously said and change anything that they feel does not represent their intentions.
One of the three model verification sessions is conducted remotely, using the Web conferencing application WebEx™. All the original model-based workshops were in person; workshops are more effective when conducted that way. But Elma is located in Charlotte, NC. To save on travel costs, the follow-on model verification with Elma is performed remotely, since you have already met the participants and they are familiar with the models and techniques.
The three model-based workshops are straightforward and do not require iteration. In Chapter 7 we discussed the need to create large models in iterations. If the Elma models had been more complex, multiple workshops would have been needed to complete the models. Or if some of the Portia participants had not been available for one workshop, multiple workshops would have been needed to include everyone.
Once the workshops are complete and the models verified, you conduct your final analysis and simulations. According to the models, the pagers reduce the delays by 18 percent, a significant improvement. There is also a small but real increase in efficiency as servers and waitstaff are asked less about when a table will be available. The reservations and seating processes are changed, but other business processes are unaffected. And you conclude that pagers will be accepted by the Portia clientele, with no impact to Portia’s strategy, and without hurting Portia’s business.
You produce a final presentation for your sponsors. In the presentation you reiterate the purpose of the workshops. You cover each workshop and who attended. You include some model diagrams to show what was created. And you share the analysis and simulation results. As a result of your work, your sponsors decides to implement pagers, first at Portia and then across other Mykonos restaurants.
Process Details of Model-Based Workshops
There is more to a model-based workshop than merely conducting the workshop itself. There is both preparation before the workshop and analysis and other activities after. Furthermore, a workshop rarely stands alone. As with the Portia pager experience, there are usually multiple workshops, and some smaller verification sessions. Figure 9.2 shows the process details of model-based workshop
First you pitch the idea. You will have to convince someone—a sponsor—that the workshop is worth the effort, that it will bring him value and that it should be funded and supported.
The second activity is Scope and Plan. You determine what will be covered in the workshop and what will not. You secure the people you need and schedule the workshop. You create a project plan: when meetings will occur and when results will be delivered from each.
During Workshop Preparation—the third activity—you collect existing materials: training manuals, org charts, old strategies. You use these materials to gain a better understanding of the organization, how it runs today, and the history of how it arrived at its current state. You plan the specifics of the way you will run the workshop. And you also prepare preliminary models.
The next three activities are iterative, performed once for each workshop you conduct. In the Portia pager example, there were three iterations—one for the workshop with the finance organization, once for the Elma workshop, and once for the longer Portia workshop. Within each iteration, you conduct a workshop, you combine models across workshops, and you verify the models with the workshop participants.
Then you analyze the models. You might simulate them and investigate the simulated results (as described in Chapter 11), or you could use a variety of static analysis methods (as described in Chapter 10). Sometimes you do both.
When the models and analysis are complete you prepare your final report, the last step in the process. You summarize and present the results back to the sponsor and his team.
Roles in a Model-Based Workshop
The facilitator works all activities of the model-based workshop process, from pitching the idea at the beginning to analyzing and reporting at the end. Other people support him in this end-to-end process. For example, the modeler creates models during workshop preparation and in the workshops and analyzes those models afterward. The scribe takes extensive notes. But most people involved in a model-based workshop only work the single task Conduct workshop. They do not help plan the workshop. They do not participate in the analysis and reporting afterward. Most people are only involved in the workshop as participants, to add their expertise and judgment to help create a better model. Most people in a model-based workshop are participating subject matter experts.
Participating Subject Matter Expert
A participating subject matter expert (SME) knows the area being modeled. He might know the details of the business process because he has personally worked it. Or he might know details of the business rules because he wrote some of them and enforces many of the others. A participating SME is at the workshop because his knowledge is being modeled; in a sense the facilitator and modeler and other people at the workshop are helping him create a model of what he knows.
During the workshop, the participating subject matter expert talks. He explains how he performs the business process. He explains the conditions under which a particular business rule applies. He explains the content of the work he knows. The other roles in a model-based workshop all serve to manage, organize, and model what the participating SME says: the scribe takes notes on what he says, the modeler creates models of what he says, the facilitator probes with questions or redirects to a related topic. None of these roles would be useful without the participating SME; everything revolves around him.
Every model-based workshop has at least one participating subject matter expert, and typically more than one is involved. Usually there are three to seven, each with an intimate knowledge of a different aspect of the problem. Of course, some models reflect a greater breadth of expertise; more than seven SMEs are needed. But a workshop with more than seven participating SMEs becomes hard to manage. It is better to organize multiple workshops when more than seven participating subject matter experts are needed.
The participating SMEs are the final arbiters of the content of the model. But most SMEs are not modelers, and they are not good judges of how best to model their own knowledge. There is a separation of responsibilities in a model-based workshop: the participating SMEs are ultimately responsible for the content of the model, but the facilitator and modeler are responsible for creating a good model from that content.
A participating SME needs no special training or preparation. He shows up with his knowledge of the domain and a willingness to work with the rest of the workshop participants to turn his knowledge into a model.
Contributing Subject Matter Expert
Some workshops involve another kind of SME: a contributing subject matter expert. The contributing SME might not know the company-specific details of the business process being modeled—she is often an outside consultant—but she knows how other companies perform that process. She might not know the business rules at this restaurant, but she knows the business rules of other restaurants.
The contributing SME brings general domain knowledge to the workshop. She understands what other companies are doing; she knows the market trends; she has the outside perspective.
Not every workshop needs a contributing SME. Sometimes the scribe can perform that role because of his deep external expertise. Sometimes no external perspective is needed. There is rarely more than a single contributing SME involved. A single outside voice suffices.
Though the participating SMEs are involved only during the workshop itself, the contributing SME helps the facilitator prepare before the workshop and helps with analysis and reporting afterward. Her perspective is useful for evaluating and understanding what the participating SMEs said.
Facilitator
In Chapter 8 we described workshop facilitation. But what does a facilitator actually do during a workshop? The facilitator stands in front, calling on participating SMEs, moving from topic to topic and from model to model. The facilitator nurtures honest discussion, and identifies and depersonalizes disagreements. The facilitator seeks consensus, and employs many techniques to achieve that consensus.
The facilitator manages conflict. Some workshops are contentious. Sometimes participants argue. Sometimes participants have different political goals and use the workshop to push their own agendas. Without facilitation, conflict can prevent a workshop from achieving its goals.
But when managed, workshop conflict can be productive. As Ronald Hiefetz notes, “conflict [within an organization] is the primary engine of creativity and innovation” [Avery 2001]. The workshop can provide a safe setting where differences of opinion can be discussed and argued. The facilitator must keep the workshop safe for conflict, defusing and depersonalizing. At times, the facilitator must have a strong personality and governs the workshop strictly, yet have a gentle demeanor and be able to get his point across. He disassociates himself from any conflict without taking sides. The facilitator sometimes asks someone to stop talking; sometimes he tries to resolve conflict directly. In difficult situations, participants in conflict can be separated into smaller concurrent sessions or into follow-on workshops held separately.
The facilitator manages time, both keeping the workshop on schedule and managing the scope against the time. This is a fundamental responsibility that is always required. Workshops always threaten to take too much time. Sometimes participants wander off topic. Sometimes participants want to dive deeper into one model, deeper than the scope of the workshop requires. The facilitator must take action, reminding the participants of the scope they all agreed to.
The facilitator manages breaks. Modeling is a thought-intensive activity that tires the participants. Breaks are important to allow everyone to stay alert. But the workshop must restart promptly after each break. All the participants are busy with their day jobs. Without careful time management of the breaks, they are likely to take too long.
Sometimes a model is not completed within the planned time. That can be OK. It is better to move on to the next model, finish it on time, and get more models completed. This situation is similar to getting stuck on one problem when taking an exam. Staying with one model and taking up a lot of extra time might allow you to complete that model but at the price of not getting to the others you could have completed. You might complete one model instead of completing half a model and five others. The facilitator makes these tradeoff judgments, deciding when it is better to move to the next model and when completion is better.
The facilitator manages voting. Often the state of the participants needs to be sampled. Does everyone agree that the process is correct as it is displayed? What are the right priorities for goals and problems? What is the best order for proposed initiatives to address the needs of the organization? The facilitator needs to use voting techniques to ensure that voices are heard. In an open, uncontentious workshop, a vote can be as simple as a show of hands or going around the room asking for each participant’s opinion. In a more politically charged workshop, some attendees are reluctant to express an opinion that differs from that of their management. Then a secret vote might be required. And though voting techniques are useful to sample the opinion of a group, the facilitator needs to be savvy about the relative importance of the people voting. Not every vote in a workshop is equal. For example, a sponsor’s vote is usually more important than the vote of someone else.
Facilitating a model-based workshop requires skills, both skills in general workshop facilitation and skills in business modeling. Of course, workshop facilitation skills are important: the facilitator must be accomplished at managing groups, managing conversations, navigating politics, and steering through difficult social situations. But model-based workshops require more. A facilitator must understand how to create and analyze business models. The facilitator of a model-based workshop must be able to listen and model at the same time.
One way for the facilitator to acquire the needed skills is to use shadowing techniques, an apprenticeship of sorts. When shadowing, the facilitator attends a model-based workshop facilitated by an experienced model-based workshop facilitator. The shadow facilitator observes and learns. The shadow facilitator then facilitates part of a session at the next workshop, and takes on increasing responsibility at each subsequent one.
It is also useful for the facilitator to know something about the industry of the client, the topic of the workshop, or both. He need not be an expert, but if he knows the basics he can avoid asking questions about industry terminology or topic fundamentals.
Modeler
The modeler in the workshop is responsible for creating models. There are three alternative methods of creating those models during a workshop: note modeling, private modeling, and live modeling. The modeler can take notes during the workshop and create the models afterward, employing note modeling. Or the modeler can use private modeling, creating models during the workshop but not showing those models to anyone during the workshop. Or the modeler can employ live modeling, creating the models during the workshop and projecting them onto a screen for everyone to see as they are created. With live modeling, the model takes shape and changes right before the participants’ eyes.
Live modeling is by far the best approach. When the facilitator talks about a model element, the modeler points to it with her mouse and everyone can see what is talked about. When a participant describes a new objective—one that hasn’t been discussed before—the modeler can create it, name it, type in a few words of description, and associate it with the existing goals. The participants get the sense of creating the model with their discussion. When a participant sees something he doesn’t agree with, he speaks up and explains. The modeler corrects the model right then, and the participant can see it fixed as he talks. In our experience, live modeling produces both better models and more deeply invested participants.
Live modeling is the best approach, but it requires skills that most modelers do not have. The modeler must listen to the workshop discussion and model at the same time. She must model quickly—as the conversation turns from point to point, the modeler must keep up. Sometimes she must ask for clarifications, asking questions about naming, timing, delays, or business rules. The modeler needs to know when to ask those questions and when not to interrupt a participant discussion. She must be respectful of the participants and aware of the dynamics in the room.
To employ live modeling, the modeler must know the modeling tool intimately. It looks bad if the modeler is struggling with the tool: credibility is lost. The modeler must be proficient, using the modeling tool as if she has done it all her life. Furthermore, the modeler must be able to explain the models she is creating, answering any questions regarding the model and techniques.
Live modeling also requires a reliable modeling tool. We have encountered tools that crash periodically during a live modeling session. When working privately with a tool, crashes are merely annoying. But during a live-modeling session, they destroy credibility, particularly if time is then lost trying to diagnose the problem.
Often a modeler will use one of the other techniques—note modeling or private modeling—instead of live modeling, because she does not have the skills. She knows how to model, but she is not proficient enough to show everyone the models as she creates them.
Scribe
The scribe takes notes during the model-based workshop, capturing everything that is said. The scribe captures discussions, agreements, timing, organizational details, interactions, issues, and even details about how individual people act during the workshop. It is impossible for the facilitator or the modeler to take good notes; they are busy doing other things during the workshop. So the scribe must take all the notes for all three.
The scribe is at the workshop just to take notes. The scribe must not be selective; he must take voluminous notes about everything since it is often not clear during a workshop what is more important and what is less so. Sometimes the notes are referenced days, weeks, or months later. Unless the notes are detailed, no one will remember what happened at the workshop or why something was modeled the way it was.
The scribe does not need to know how to model, but it is helpful if the scribe is familiar with the model disciplines and the modeling techniques. It is also helpful if the scribe has some familiarity with either the organization or the business problem. It makes the whole modeling team seem more organized and knowledgeable. When the scribe contributes to the discussion—even a little—the contribution avoids questions about the scribe’s value.
Sponsor
The sponsor sponsors the workshop. He uses his executive authority to secure the commitments needed to run the workshop. If there are costs involved—for example, if the facilitator and modeler are outside consultants—the sponsor covers the cost. Even if there is no direct cost, there is an opportunity cost of the workshop because the time of every participant is valuable. The sponsor secures their time and their commitments.
Typically, the workshop is motivated by a sponsor’s specific need or desired outcome. The sponsor wants a problem resolved, a question answered, or an assumption validated. His desired outcome sets the overall goal for the workshop.
Before the workshop, the facilitator and modeler meet with the sponsor, to get his commitment for the workshop. The sponsor must ensure the right participants are identified, and that they actually attend.
The sponsor also sets the overall tone for the workshop. Typically the sponsor makes the opening remarks, explains the expected outcome, and introduces the modeling team. The sponsor also emphasizes the importance of the effort and his expectation that the participants cooperate, speak freely, and enjoy the experience.
Challenging Personalities in a Model-Based Workshop
Most of the people in the workshop have the same role: they are participating SMEs. But in practice the participating SMEs behave differently. Each participant has his own personality. The personalities play off one another in a workshop, making each workshop unique.
The mix of attendees at a workshop sometimes presents challenges. Some people are disruptive; others hijack a workshop to fit their personal causes. Others are quiet and do not participate. If the workshop is disrupted or if the participation is uneven, you will not get consensus and you will not be able to create the models you need. Your workshop will fail.
As the facilitator, the workshop success rests with you. You must identify the various personalities and handle them. To help you envision the personalities you will encounter, we have described a few of the common ones, giving each an animal name based (loosely) on an animal that exhibits similar behavior.
The Mouse
The mouse is quiet. She is a participant, but she does not actually participate much in the workshop. Her lack of participation can be due to a variety of causes. The mouse might be shy and reluctant to talk in a group setting. Or perhaps she feels intimidated by more powerful or more aggressive participants. The mouse is unsure of herself. She has little confidence in her opinions and is afraid of ridicule. So she is quiet rather than risking participation.
To involve the mouse, you must take action. As the facilitator, you must ask her for her opinion. You can use facilitation techniques that require everyone to voice their thoughts—for example, by circling around the room person by person and asking each person in turn for his or her view.
Even when she participates, the mouse might not voice her true thoughts. For example, when you work with the group to model a business strategy, the mouse will agree with everyone else about what the business should do rather than take a stand. To reduce this effect, you can use anonymous voting techniques to ensure that her true voice is heard.
The Bulldog
The bulldog is aggressive. You will recognize the bulldog because he will challenge you and challenge other participants from the beginning of the workshop. Often he will start by questioning the usefulness of the workshop itself because—for some reason unknown to you—he does not want to be there.
The bulldog does not want to be there for one of several possible reasons. Maybe the bulldog wants to be in control. He did not organize the workshop, and he cannot control it. Maybe the bulldog does not like listening to other people’s opinions. Maybe the bulldog does not like consensus. He perceives meetings in general—and workshops in particular—to be a waste of time. Maybe the bulldog is unfamiliar with modeling and feels threatened.
The bulldog will disrupt. He will challenge you, asking questions such as “Why are we here?” He will make comments like “This is not useful.” or “I think this is a waste of time.”
You have to manage the bulldog quickly. You can attempt to ask him to wait and see the value, or say “Let’s stick with this for now and you will soon see the results” or even “We can discuss this offline, but for now let’s focus on this organizational model.”
Sometimes you will need to take action. Sometimes the bulldog must simply be removed from the workshop so that progress can be made with the other participants. You can approach the sponsor (at a break) and ask that the bulldog be removed. If the bulldog is critical to the model you are building, you will need to schedule a separate one-on-one meeting with him. (And bulldogs are much easier to manage one on one.)
For bulldogs, it helps to be prepared. Your sponsor might be able to identify the potential bulldogs, so that you avoid surprises. Prior to the workshop, you can strategize with your sponsor about who to watch for bulldog behavior and how to handle such behavior should it arise.
The Prairie Dog
The prairie dog is nervous and afraid. He has seen business process reengineering efforts that result in workforce reduction. He worries about his job and suspects that he has been invited to the workshop because his job is in jeopardy. The prairie dog is careful about what he says. He is more concerned with protecting his position and with how his statements will be interpreted than with the business problem that motivated the workshop.
Sometimes his concerns are warranted. Sometimes model-based workshops do result in workforce reductions or in other changes that the prairie dog would not welcome. The modern workplace is an uncertain environment. And if a model-based workshop did not have the potential to transform the business, would it really be worth your time and trouble?
But some model-based workshops are not aimed at workforce reductions or at any change that should threaten the prairie dog. If your workshop does not threaten any positions, you should explain that. You can address the prairie dog concerns when you introduce the workshop. When you explain the purpose of the workshop, you will alleviate the prairie dog concerns.
What do you do if your workshop is in fact aimed at efficiency or at reducing headcount? What do you do if the concerns of the prairie dog are valid? There are several approaches. You can introduce the workshop by describing its purpose as improving efficiency and understanding what problems the individuals and team are facing. By solving problems and reducing bottlenecks you will help the prairie dog perform his job better. He could then contribute his issues and knowledge and be engaged, understanding you are there to help.
But sometimes it is better to be brutally honest. If the ultimate purpose of the workshop is improving efficiency so that headcount can be reduced, it is better to present that purpose at the beginning. Courage can be contagious, even for prairie dogs.
As the facilitator, you need to be attuned to the audience and the way they will perceive the workshop. Making the participants feel at ease regardless of the workshop purpose is critical to the success of the modeling effort. In some cases being up-front about the real reason for the workshop might be the best approach. You will have to gauge each situation and discuss the right approach with your sponsor because he knows the participants and can predict their reactions.
The Pig
The pig is self-centered. The sponsor has a purpose for the workshop, but the pig is at the workshop for a completely different purpose. The pig wants to control the workshop and use it to push his own agenda. The pig is not open-minded. Most participants contribute their own opinions and then listen to others. But the pig wants only to talk and not to listen to anyone else.
As the facilitator, you must convey how the workshop incorporates everyone’s voice. You must pay attention to the pig since he often has good ideas, perspectives, or knowledge. You need to direct the pig and do so constructively. Listen and make sure he is heard, but cut him off and give others an opportunity to be heard as well.
Voting techniques help manage the pig. The voting—whether anonymous or not—shows how the group thinks and exposes the pig for what he is. It lets everyone see that the pig holds a minority view.
The Cat
The cat is independent and has a short attention span. Though attending your workshop, he is really running his own. While you are working with the rest of the participating subject matter experts to capture business rules, he is talking with another participant about the previous model, the rumored corporate reorganization, or what a mutual friend did the week before.
The cat does not mean to disrupt, but his side talk interferes with the workshop progress. He often needs to be brought back to the content of the workshop. You need to catch him wandering off and then politely ask him to end the side conversation, and focus on the model you are creating.
The Crab
The crab always disagrees. Crabs move sideways and backward, but they will not help move your workshop forward. The crab is a contrarian: the topic is not critical; the issue at hand is not important; the model does not matter. The crab will always find something he dislikes or disagrees with.
Unlike the pig or bulldog, the crab is not pushing a personal agenda. His crabbiness is matter of personality rather than political interest. Often a crab is just unhappy—with his job, with how his day is going, with one of the team members, or with you and the workshop. He finds many opportunities to disagree.
A crab often adds value by pointing out the problems and shortcomings with a model or with a proposed solution to a business problem. If managed properly his crabbiness can be useful, but if he is too vocal he can disrupt the workshop. He can also dampen the enthusiasm of other participants, casting a negative shadow on the workshop.
How should a crab be managed? As the facilitator, you can recognize his negative contributions and turn to others for positive solutions to the problems he raises. For example, when he points out a problem with a proposed business process redesign, you can ask other participants how the problem could be addressed. Sometimes a crab cannot be managed in this way, and you simply need to remove him from the workshop.
The Otter
The otter is social and playful. He does not prepare for workshops, he does not bother understanding the purpose of the workshop, and he does not follow the modeling. The otter does what is comfortable for him: he socializes.
A workshop is always a social event. There is always some small talk, some wordplay, and some gossip exchanged at every workshop. For more than a few participants, workshops are fun precisely because they are social; some participants delight in another opportunity to work with their colleagues.
But the otter takes this normal workshop socializing too far. The otter is all play and no work. In the middle of focused discussion about a model, he starts an unrelated conversation. During a debate about the appropriate tactics for achieving a strategy, he segues into a joke. The otter’s playful acts do not advance the goals of the workshop.
As the facilitator, you must ask the otter to be quiet. You must remind him about the purpose of the workshop. The otter does not have an agenda and is not aggressive; once asked he will stop playing and participate.
The Whole Workshop Menagerie
You can prepare to manage the challenging personalities in a workshop by understanding the range of personalities you can encounter. Table 9.1 lists all the personalities we have described and how to handle each.
Table 9.1
Summary of Challenging Personalities
| Behavior | How to Manage | |
| Mouse | Quiet and tentative | Ask for opinion, actively include |
| Bulldog | Aggressive and challenging | Rebuff, maybe remove |
| Prairie Dog | Nervous and afraid | Explain workshop purpose and results |
| Pig | Controls for his benefit | Acknowledge, cut off, and direct |
| Cat | Independent and wandering | Cut off and refocus |
| Crab | Disagrees and criticizes | Recognize and involve, maybe remove |
| Otter | Playful and not serious | Remind purpose |
You can plan to manage challenging personalities, but planning does not help much. Each workshop has a different collection of participants and a different combination of personalities. Each workshop has different dynamics; you must manage each differently.
Other aspects of the workshop do benefit from planning. There are other actions you can take to run a smooth and productive workshop.
Creating a Productive Workshop
A model-based workshop consumes time. All the workshop participants spend time at the workshop itself: 4 hours or 8 hours or however long the workshop takes. And as we showed in Figure 9.2, there is further time spent before and after the workshop by the facilitator and the modeler: time scoping and planning, time preparing, time cleaning up and analyzing the models, time creating the report.
A model-based workshop usually incurs expenses as well. Minor expenses include the meals and snacks that are generally provided during a workshop, and the provisioning of a suitable meeting room for the workshop. Larger expenses include travel costs if some of the participants live in other locations. If the facilitator, modeler, or other model-based workshop participants are employed by another company, their consulting time is an expense as well.
Because a model-based workshop consumes time and money, it must produce significant business value—more value than the time and money it consumes. When you facilitate a model-based workshop, the business value you must create is a high hurdle; it drives much of your activity before and after the workshop. There are many things you can do before, during, and after a model-based workshop to make it productive and create the significant business value you need.
As the facilitator, you need to ensure everyone—every workshop participant—has a common understanding of the purpose and expected outcomes of the model-based workshop. Although time-consuming, it is often valuable to call participants individually prior to the workshop. On each of those calls you explain the purpose and expected outcomes of the workshop and why the person you are calling is important to the workshop success. We have found that this individual-by-individual explanation and appeal leads to fewer no-shows and more participation. Then when the workshop is held you start the session by reminding everyone of the purpose and expected outcomes.
It is important to understand the organizational environment you are entering. If you are not already deeply knowledgeable about the organization, you should meet with the sponsor of the model-based workshop and ask him questions about the participants and the organization. Who are the challenging personalities? What are the politics that different participants might push? Are there any topics that should be avoided? Are there sensitive issues—e.g., regarding outsourcing or workforce reduction—that will make the atmosphere more difficult?
As the facilitator, you are responsible for keeping the workshop interesting to the participants. Some workshops are inherently interesting to the participants. When there is uncertainty about the organization’s strategy—and interest among the participants about getting the strategy right—a strategy workshop will be inherently interesting. Workshops that employ live modeling are always interesting for participants, no matter what the topic of the workshop. Participants are fascinated watching their words shape a model projected for all to see.
But what do you do if your workshop is not inherently interesting and if your modeler is not skilled enough to employ live modeling? You must employ techniques to keep their interest. You can use a white board and sticky notes to mock up a model, to draw out the new business process. Mocking up a model visually with sticky notes is not as interesting for the participants as live modeling, but it is far better than just listening to each other talk.
Typically one workshop is not enough. As we showed in Figure 9.2, a series of model-based workshops is generally necessary to produce the business models. And the workshops themselves can be part of a larger effort—part of a project or a sales pursuit. But each workshop in the series must in itself produce business value for the participants. If a workshop does not produce value, you will lose commitment for and participation in subsequent workshops. Your sponsor might even lose confidence in your approach and cancel the remaining workshops. So, at the end of a workshop, the models produced should be valuable in their own right.
How can you ensure that the models produced in a single workshop are valuable? Each workshop must have a clear goal. Each workshop must focus on a manageable chunk of the business problem. If the workshop is three days long, you can probably create a motivation model and create some as-is and to-be processes. If the workshop is only three hours long, your goals will be more modest, perhaps only part of the motivation model or a single organization model. But you must organize the workshops so that the models you create are valuable.
Create a clear workshop agenda and an appropriate allotment of time. Do not try to do too much during the workshop. Doing too much tires all the workshop attendees, and reduces the quality of what is produced. At the beginning of each session within a model-based workshop, clarify how long the session will last and what modeling will be performed. For example, you might allot two hours for a business organization model and three hours for each of two business processes. Even if you have not completed the model in the scheduled time, you will get a chance to return to it. As we explained in Chapter 7, modeling is iterative. You will refine the model later.
Take whatever time is offered. You might know that a thorny business motivation model will take six hours, yet your participants will only give you two, either because of scheduling conflicts or due to reluctance to involve themselves in an effort they expect to be waste of time. Don’t postpone the workshop until you can get all six hours; you might never get them. Instead, accept the two hours and make them productive and valuable. Once the participants see the value, they will find the remaining four hours in their schedules. They might even find the time that day to stay beyond the two hours scheduled. In our experience, once participants are engaged and they see value, they want to complete the models. Their schedules suddenly clear.
Explain the model elements and the meaning of each. Some of the participants in your workshop will not have seen (for example) a business process model before. Others will have worked with business process models, but models defined in a looser manner, without the precision around activities, sequence flows, message flows, and gateways. If your participants do not understand what they are seeing, they will lose interest and they will not be able to contribute to constructing the models. Explain the basics at the beginning of the workshop or before a new modeling discipline is used. Show a simple example and highlight each of the modeling elements and its purpose.
Take breaks. Modeling is a rigorous mental exercise and can be tiring. Schedule regular breaks between large chunks of modeling. You can also use breaks when you sense that the team is bored or drifting or that conflicts are forming. Allow tempers to cool before you restart.
Manage the breaks with care. If you schedule a 15-minute break, some participants will take 20 or even 30 minutes, catching up on phone calls and email. This break creep is natural and understandable: the participants are all busy professionals with many pressures and demands. But break creep reduces the modeling you achieve. And if the whole team is not present you will not be able to reach true consensus on any contentious issues.
Gathering participants after a break is difficult and frustrating, particularly when some are on their phones. Fortunately you have a powerful tool to eliminate break creep: embarrassment. When you take a break, announce the time everyone is expected to return and the embarrassing penalty for anyone who is late. We find that requiring a latecomer to dance in front of the workshop to a classic 1970s funk track is an effective penalty. Then when the break is almost done, you can play the classic song. The music alerts everyone that the break is finishing and reminds them of the embarrassing penalty for being late. Almost everyone wants to avoid dancing in front of their colleagues.
Your preparation before the workshop makes the workshop itself more productive. If the purpose of the workshop is to create a business motivation model, you can collect materials on the business problems and other influencers facing the organization. You can also talk with participating subject matter experts before the workshop to learn more about how they see the influencers. Then, during the workshop, if the conversation stalls, you can inquire about an influencer you learned from your research or from your conversations.
Make sure the participants you need will actually attend the workshop. Often a participating subject matter expert will become too busy and designate someone else to attend “on his behalf.” But does the designee actually have the expertise? If not, he will not be able to help create the model. Nothing is as frustrating as asking questions of a purported SME and eliciting the responses “I am not sure” or “I need to ask Joe.”
Listen carefully when the SME talks. Novice modelers and facilitators usually miss some of what the SME says. By hearing only parts, they fail to create a good model and then fail to gain the model buy-in from the SME. The SME treats the model as something odd the modeler created rather than something she cocreated with the modeler.
Plan to spend significant time modeling between workshops. We have found that after a two-hour workshop, you must perform one to three hours of modeling before you are ready for the next workshop. Similarly, after an eight-hour workshop, you should plan to perform four to 12 hours of modeling before the next. Alternating in-session time and out-session time is important, to capture everything the subject matter experts said, to refactor the model so it is simple and clean, and to prepare questions and points of departure for your next session.
How many workshops are enough? How many workshops should you plan to complete a model? The answer depends (of course) on what you are modeling and on how large and complex the model will be. But our experience is that one workshop is rarely enough. You will need at least two so the SMEs can see what has been built. Usually three or more workshops are needed.
Workshop Antipatterns
In the model-based workshops we have conducted, we have seen several recurring problems. We call these problems workshop antipatterns. (Some readers with a background in software project management will recognize the origin of this term [Brown 1998].) Each antipattern is a common way for model-based workshops to fail.
Some of these antipatterns can be managed when they happen—during the workshop itself. But others cannot; you must avoid them in your preparation before the workshop or suffer through them when they occur.
Missing Participants Antipattern
You arrive at the workshop location. As the participants assemble you notice that the IT director is missing. Your heart sinks. Without him, the workshop is going to be a waste of time. Only he understands the mission of the IT organization. Only he knows the history of why the IT organization is organized the way it is. You call his cell phone but reach his voicemail. It doesn’t look like he is going to be at the workshop.
Your workshop fails before it starts. You already know you will not achieve the workshop goals. As the workshop progresses, the rest of the participants see the failure and start to consider it a waste of time. One leaves at a break and never returns. Some of the others begin to question the usefulness of the workshop.
For a workshop to be productive, all the required participants must show. If the workshop is missing participants, the models will be skewed, lacking the detail that the missing expertise would have provided. You will need to meet afterward with the missing participants to fill in that detail and then verify the resulting model changes with the original group. It is more productive to have all the right people in the room at the same time.
The missing participant might be a bulldog—someone who just does not want to participate. But typically this antipattern arises because of the culture of the organization. You can discover a lot about the organization in planning meetings before the workshop. Are they taking the workshop seriously? Are they enthusiastic about the workshop? Was the scheduling of the planning meeting difficult? Were there no-shows at the planning meeting itself?
As a facilitator, you can mitigate this risk in a couple of ways. You can call each participant the day before the workshop and confirm his or her attendance. You can locate the workshop in a conference room near the work areas of the key participants, so you can walk them to the workshop if necessary.
Missing Equipment Antipattern
You arrive at the workshop early so that you can set up your computer, load your presentations, run the modeling tool, and arrange the room. But when you arrive, you realize that the room is missing equipment. It has neither a laptop projector nor a white board. You begin to panic. How can you do live modeling if you cannot display the models on a screen? How can you create business process models if you do not have a white board? With some difficulty you find another room two floors up with a white board and a projector. Everyone moves. But you have failed the first impression. As a facilitator you need to demonstrate your management skills and introduce your model-based workshop on a positive note. Now the participants think you are incompetent.
Model-based workshops don’t require a lot of equipment or supplies. You need only a room with sufficient space and adequate ventilation, a laptop, a projector and a blank wall on which to project, a white board and markers, and perhaps sticky notes for voting. But without the equipment, your workshop is difficult. Participants need to see the models to understand and relate to them. If all you can do is discuss the models abstractly, they will not understand and you will not be able to create good models. The workshop will be confusing.
To avoid this antipattern, find out about the room you will be using. If possible, visit the room before the workshop to see what equipment is available. You don’t need much, but make sure you have it all. Another approach to avoiding this antipattern is to bring everything yourself. Create a workshop toolkit: laptop, projector and spare bulb, sticky notes, markers, and clear cling sheets that turn any wall into a white board. A digital camera is also useful, to photograph white board model diagrams. A prepared facilitator impresses participants.
Multitasking Antipattern
You are in the middle of running a workshop, describing the elements of a process model in preparation for creating one. Then you notice one participant is not listening. Joe—the information technology director—is typing into his laptop, probably checking email but maybe even playing solitaire. Someone else is distracted. Nancy from Procurement is checking her PDA. Is she looking at her schedule? Texting with a colleague? What is that music? Someone’s cell phone is ringing, playing the opening riffs of “Sweet Home, Alabama” as he walks to the hallway to take the call. And he does not even wait until he is out of the room to start talking!
Many business professionals are proud of their “multitasking” skills—of their alleged abilities to do two things at once. Computers multitask well, but for people, multitasking is largely a myth. Doing anything of business value requires focused attention. Or as the Roman philosopher Publius Syrus said, “To do two things at once is to do neither” [Bartlett 1904]. In our experience, people who think they multitask are in fact poor performers.
In particular, to create a valuable workshop, you need the focused attention of all workshop participants. But how can you get this attention in our modern world, with cell phones, PDAs, and laptops? You must be firm. Establish some simple rules at the beginning of the workshop: no cell phones, no laptops, no PDAs, no email. When participants forget these rules during the workshop, reinforce them.
A milder approach is to have the participants discuss and agree on the rules collectively. The participants might decide to ban laptops and turn cellphones silent, but answer emergency calls from Dan related to the quarterly financial close (for example). The advantage of letting the participants decide is that they will police each other, freeing you from cell phone enforcement duty.
Either approach will work, but you must do something. If you do nothing, your workshop will suffer the slow death of 40 phone calls.
Weak Sponsor Antipattern
At the beginning of your workshop, the sponsor stands up and speaks. But instead of explaining the purpose and importance of the workshop and instead of encouraging the participants, he says little. He just introduces you and sits back down. Within an hour, three participants have left. And another participant is showing signs of the bulldog.
A weak sponsor leads to a weak workshop. If the participants do not see enthusiasm from the sponsor, they decide it is not important. They decide to get it done and move on. They see the modeling effort as yet another pointless exercise producing a report that no one will read.
Beyond expressing enthusiasm, a sponsor needs to perform several activities before the workshop. A weak sponsor will fail to act. He will not talk to the participants, explaining to each why her participation is important. He will not send the required emails. He will not ask participants to schedule their time. When you ask him about the hidden agendas and difficult personalities, he will not know.
To avoid this antipattern, you must coach your sponsor. You must tell him what he needs to say. You must ask him to schedule the necessary meetings and check that he does. You can even draft the emails he should send and ask him to send them. It is much easier for some sponsors to revise your email than to compose their own.
Biased Facilitator Antipattern
You are facilitating a strategy workshop for the Mykonos management team. As you create the business motivation models, Harry, the Mykonos Chief Technology Officer, proposes a new strategy for improving customer satisfaction. He proposes to build a portal, a Website where restaurant general managers can share experiences about successful customer-related techniques. But you have seen this before at many different companies, and you know what will happen. The portal will be built, and no one will contribute. The restaurant general managers are busy running their restaurants. Without a strong reason to contribute, they won’t. And without contributed material, no one will look there for new techniques. They will talk to other GMs they know, read the trade literature, or even search the Web before they will try the portal again. The portal will die from a lack of interest.
As you look around the room, you wonder if anyone else is aware of this phenomenon. Are you the only person who has seen portals die? You would like to provide some guidance, but is that outside the boundaries of your role as a facilitator? You are torn.
The facilitator is supposed to facilitate, not participate. To retain the trust of the participants, the facilitator needs to stay neutral and even-handed, focused on the processes of facilitation and modeling rather than the content of the workshop. But this is difficult. As the facilitator, you might be from the same company as the participants. You could have an interest in the outcome. Or you could just be knowledgeable about some workshop topics.
Facilitators often become engrossed in the content of the workshop and try to contribute. But when you participate, you are not facilitating. You are not managing the discussion or the time. You are creating content. Worse, the participants will see your actions as corrupt, an abuse of your position. And they will start to suspect everything you do, not just your newly expressed opinions about the content, but even the standard facilitation techniques of asking others for their opinions, calling for votes on open questions, and moving the discussion to a new topic. You will lose their trust.
Like any kind of corruption, this antipattern is completely avoidable if you exercise self-control. Stay in your facilitator role. If you need to influence the discussion, do so discretely through a contributing subject matter expert or a sympathetic participant. If you need to participate, find another facilitator to take your place for that workshop and become either a participant or a contributing subject matter expert yourself.
Rejected Model Antipattern
When you work with SMEs, one of your goals is that they invest in the model you are building together. At first they will think of the model as your model, not theirs. Not feeling comfortable with the modeling tool, the model elements or modeling in general, they will claim the model does not represent their thinking. This can be confusing. You captured what they said, and you showed them the resulting model. Why don’t they feel ownership?
At first it is natural for a SME to think of the model as your model, but after two or three workshops, you want her to own the model, to feel like she created it as much as you did, to have her think of it as her model. When she feels that she owns the model, verification becomes easier. She will examine the model, find mistakes, and bring them to your attention rather than waiting for you to ask her about the accuracy of each model element.
Even better, when the SME owns a model, she will introduce it to others. The model gains credibility because it is a product of an insider—someone who is recognized inside the company as an expert has loaned the model some of her own credibility.
How do you achieve that kind of SME ownership? Often it happens naturally with time. With each workshop the SME becomes more invested. But you can also increase the likelihood of SME investment by employing model echoing, by listening carefully to what she says and attempting to put everything she says into the model. When the SME says something you echo it in the model, perhaps with a new model element, perhaps with a new association between existing model elements, perhaps with a changed description on an existing element. With model echoing, the work session becomes a conversation between the SME talking with words and you answering with model elements.
Model echoing has a much bigger impact when you are live modeling. When the SME sees her words today change the model tomorrow, at the next work session, she might make the connection and feel some investment in the model. But when the SME can see her words taking shape in the model immediately after she says them, there is an opportunity for a much bigger investment. Model echoing via live modeling can have a powerful emotional effect.
Of course, not everything the SME says really deserves to be in the model. SMEs wander out of scope, talking about topics that are not the focus on the model. And SMEs mix the important and the trivial. How do you practice model echoing yet keep a model in scope and on target?
A good approach is to model what the SME says as she says it and then prune the model later. You can prune the model in-session with her, explaining that this element is really not so important and that element is really out of scope. Or you can prune the model later out of session and then explain what you have done at the beginning of the next workshop. Using either pruning method you will attain the benefits of echo modeling and still keep the model in scope.
Participants Modeling Antipattern
You are live modeling an existing procurement business process with a team of participating SMEs and things go awry. You are working with the participants to name an activity, and Nancy insists that the name should be Review Restaurant Supplies with Each of the General Managers. You think this name is far too long but you say nothing. Then Beth wants you to include a “box” for the inventory system that is used in the supply review. You explain that in a business process model an application is shown in a swimlane, not as an activity. But Beth says, “I just want a box on that picture to show the RESTINV system. Can’t your tool make a box?” So your modeler adds an activity and names it RESTINV, even though the RESTINV is not actually an activity. Then Roger objects to the parallel gateway that joins three sequence flows together. He doesn’t understand it, and he asks your modeler to just remove it. You know you are creating a bad model, but you are not sure what to do. Isn’t the client always right?
Sometimes participating SMEs want to create and change the models themselves, either using the modeling tools directly or instructing you on what model elements should be created and where they should be placed. This is an encouraging development, since it only happens when the SMEs become deeply invested in the models. They will only want to create a model when they care about it.
However this development is also dangerous. SMEs do not know how to create coherent, simple, and accurate models, and the vast majority of them are not interested in investing the time and trouble to learn. Without training and experience, they think of the model elements as boxes and lines rather than activities and sequence flow, or goals and associations, or whatever the model elements are in the discipline you are using. To paraphrase humorist P. J. O’Rourke, turning over modeling decisions to a subject matter expert is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
You must be firm. A good approach is to adopt the modeling stance with subject experts. “Ms. SME, you are an expert in the supply chain process of your business, and I trust your judgments on all supply chain matters. I am an expert in modeling, and I ask you to trust my judgments in how to translate your supply chain expertise into an effective model.” The modeling stance establishes business modeling as something that has its own expertise and frames the problem of modeling as requiring both their subject matter expertise and yours, both subject matter expertise in a specialized company matter (e.g., their supply chain business process) and subject matter expertise in business modeling. By adopting the modeling stance, you remind them of your deep respect for their expertise but reserve the modeling decisions for yourself.
Case Study
In the United States, each of the 50 states enforces its own labor laws. Each state regulates the way a business located in that state can employ people, and each regulates the wages, salaries, and benefits that a business must provide to its employees. The states enforce safety laws to prevent employees from being hurt. The states enforce laws to prevent employees from being exploited by their employers. And of course sometimes things do not work out as planned. Businesses sometimes shut down or reduce their workforces and employees find themselves looking for new work. The states provide unemployment benefits to those who lose their jobs. To fund these benefits, the states tax employers against the risk of their employees becoming unemployed.
In New York State, these responsibilities are shouldered by the New York Department of Labor. In addition to its regulatory work, NYDOL offers unemployment insurance and other unemployment benefits. Managing unemployment benefits is complex, partly because such benefits must meet the requirements of the US Federal government. The management of unemployment benefits involves registering employers and employees, verifying that employees are eligible for unemployment benefits, processing claims and payment, and handling appeals if benefits are denied.
A few years ago, NYDOL realized that it needed to overhaul its existing computer systems and business processes to meet the evolving needs of New York businesses and the employees of those businesses. NYDOL’s older systems could not be easily changed, and this lack of system agility affected the department’s ability to perform its mission [Welborn 2006].
A modeling team was enlisted to perform business process reengineering and support the new system implementation. The processes they examined included collecting unemployment taxes, granting unemployment benefits, and the related hearing and appeals process. The modeling team created as-is models and to-be models of those processes. They performed organizational analysis on the to-be future state to develop plans for resources change management. They defined business performance metrics for monitoring the future state. They analyzed the to-be models to determine requirements for the new system implementation.
But the NYDOL subject matter experts rejected the models. They were not familiar with the details of the models and did not feel ownership. They did not understand the modeling approach or the modeling tool.
The models were also inconsistent. Models for different processes were detailed to different extents. Some models were less detailed, some more. It was difficult for the SMEs to understand the models and interpret them consistently.
We were asked to improve the models to make them acceptable to NYDOL. After meeting with the SMEs it became apparent that the models were created in lane isolation—different SMEs had worked on small sections of the models but had not seen the whole. We used a three-step approach to improve the models.
First, we cleaned up the as-is models, refactored them, made them consistent, and improved their visual appeal. We applied the best practices described in Chapter 7. Common naming conventions, style, and diagram size were used to make the models easy to understand. Simple graphical treatments were applied to make the models attractive.
Second, we held workshops with the SMEs at an offsite location so that there would be no distractions, no phone calls, and no emails. The workshops were held on alternating days, allowing model cleanup on the days between the workshops.
Initially the workshops showed both the original (rejected) models and the improved models (cleaned up, refactored, and made consistent). We wanted to show the SMEs that nothing was lost between the original and improved models. Though the improved models looked different, they still contained all the content of the original models. The NYDOL SMEs accepted the improved models.
Subsequent workshops focused on the to-be processes. We facilitated the SMEs in creating to-be process models, using live modeling to create the models with them. After an opening plenary session, the SMEs were divided among the business processes each understood, and model-based workshops for these business processes were conducted in parallel. A couple of joint workshops were held to handle connection points between two business processes.
Third, some employees of NYDOL elected to learn the modeling tool and become business modelers. We held training sessions, teaching both the tool and more general business modeling principles. By the final workshop some NYDOL employees were able to model themselves and to perform their own modeling modifications and cleanup.
After six weeks of working with NYDOL, we transitioned the models to them. They took complete ownership and maintained the models with their own modelers.
Running a model-based workshop involves several steps—from pitching the value of a workshop to conducting the workshop, analyzing the results, and presenting a report to the sponsor.
A facilitator leads a model-based workshop. She is supported by a team that includes a modeler, a scribe, a contributing subject matter expert, and several participating SMEs. Some participating SMEs have challenging personalities and require careful management to achieve good results from the workshop. There are also common antipatterns that must be avoided or managed.
This chapter and the two previous describe how to create good business models. The next three chapters explain how to use those business models to create business value, starting with Chapter 10, which explains how to analyze a business model.