Systemic intervention | about 40 minutes | free
Build an engagement and evidence plan that does not confuse influence with the right to be heard.
A basic inquiry-design rehearsal. An invented engagement plan is not evidence of actual facilitation, safe participation or sustained relationships.
This is original learning material, not a reproduced official course. Mechanical checks have determinate answers within the stated case. Worked comparisons for open judgements show defensible reasoning, not the only possible model. Specialist pedagogical review is not recorded.
Fictional case: a transport partnership surveys people through its smartphone ticketing app. Managers report that 92% of respondents are satisfied. The response count and invitation count are not given. Drivers say some passengers pay cash and need help. A disability group cannot attend the partnership's daytime meetings. The operator controls timetables, the council controls a subsidy, and passengers have informal influence but no direct timetable authority.
Use paper, your own drawing tool or the notes below. Attempt each step before opening its comparison. Describe a diagram in words when that is more accessible.
Produce: A four-column actor table.
The operator controls timetable decisions; the council controls subsidy; drivers hold operational knowledge; passengers experience the service; the disability group can supply perspectives absent from the meetings. Low formal power does not mean low relevance. Distinguish resource control from expertise and affectedness.
Produce: Three missing facts and one excluded group.
Ask how many were invited, how many responded, what question was asked, when, and whether repeat responses were possible. People without the app are outside the sampling frame. The percentage may describe respondents accurately while saying little about all passengers or people unable to travel.
Produce: Two evidence routes and an accessible participation option.
Observe a small range of journeys and interview cash and app users with consent. Hold supported conversations at accessible times or through an independent group. Retain anonymous reporting where useful. Ask an open question such as 'Tell me about the last journey you tried to make', then check interpretation with the speaker.
Produce: An opening question, a participation safeguard and a record format.
Ask 'What makes a journey usable, and for whom does the current arrangement fail?' Give participants different ways to contribute and separate operator authority from facilitation. Record agreements, differences, missing evidence and commitments. A World Cafe or other format is a means, not proof that all relevant voices are present.
These checks test the supplied case, not your overall competence. Open answers and model variants still need your judgement.
Only high-power stakeholders are invited because low-power passengers cannot affect delivery.
Separate ability to block a decision from entitlement to contribute evidence and challenge its effects. Design routes for affected people to influence the inquiry and explain what authority remains elsewhere.
The disability group declines the proposed workshop. What should not be inferred, and what is a better next move?
Do not infer indifference or consent. Ask whether timing, trust, access, burden or previous experience is the issue, and offer a less burdensome route through their preferred representative or format.
A different model can be defensible when its purpose, assumptions and reasoning are explicit. A contradiction, incorrect unit, invented fact or unacknowledged change of purpose needs repair. Keep both your first attempt and revision.
No sign-in or submission is required. Notes are not sent by this practice tool. Use fictional information, not identifiable client or learner data. Saving stores this page's attempt only in this browser; clearing browser data can remove it. Export a copy to keep it elsewhere.
The complete original case above is free. Links below distinguish exercises from explanations, recordings, software and paid study. Reading a page or drawing in a tool is not itself a model check.
Select the named tool, try the associated template and compare with the example. Use the pack's explicit checks where the toolkit provides no answer key.
HTML toolkit inspected, including mapping, stock-flow, theory of change and evaluation sections. Its examples are not automatic validation of a learner's model.
Use the cases to examine legitimacy, boundaries, agency and learning partnerships. The original case here provides the checkable rehearsal.
Authors' page, free PDF route and paperback links inspected. It is a related social-learning resource, not identical to every method grouped in the bridge exercise.
Further reading for each framework row, including the separate references associated with transposing theory.
Public sharing confirmed; approach and theory bibliography inspected. The presence of a reference does not establish that it contains self-check exercises.
Choose the relevant workshop and check current arrangements. Learning with others is needed beyond a solo worksheet.
Authors' overview describes workshops using participants' live projects. Specific dates, places, prices and availability are not asserted here.
Ask for practice with feedback in the named approach, rather than assuming every recording includes assessment.
The page lists coverage including CONAN, INFORMED and multi-methodology. Availability and individual tutor feedback require an enquiry.
Choose another practice area · Task-only version · Worked-answer version