English edition: the full translation has not yet received an independent line-by-line review. Check the linked sources and method-specific limits before use. Japanese PDFs and videos remain labelled.

Learning course 1

Plan your first 90-minute session

Use the purpose, participants, and available time to build a manageable first session plan.

Judgement to practise in this course: Decide in advance what should remain at the end and what happens next.

No registration or saved progress. Inputs are neither sent nor saved.

Case 1

10 minutes in, people have not started speaking

IAF competency reference C
Create and Sustain a Participatory Environment

1. Read the situation

8 people, including some meeting for the first time, sit silently in front of the topic. Only the facilitator continues explaining the background.

Only the facilitator is speaking
The first contribution to the whole group carries a psychological burden
10 minutes after the start, no participant's voice has been recorded

2. Predict what comes next

If you keep asking questions to the whole group, who will speak first, and how will later contributions become uneven?

Your prediction (not saved, even on this device)

Input is not sent and is lost when you leave the page. Do not enter personal information or the names of real people.

3. Choose an intervention

Choose the first intervention you would make in this situationA Explain the background and purpose in more detail for another 5 minutesB Answer a short question in pairs, then bring one brief contribution each to the whole groupC Keep waiting silently until someone volunteers to speak

4. Check the result and reasons

Without JavaScript, all three choice results are shown.

Result of choice A

Failure example: the explanation grows without checking understanding, and participants still do not know how to contribute.

Reason: This assumes that a lack of information is the main cause of silence, without reducing the burden of speaking for the first time.

Result of choice B (Recommended)

What happens: everyone has spoken once in a pair before briefly sharing the main points with the whole group.

Reason: Time to think alone and talk in pairs before speaking to the whole group reduces the burden of getting started in stages.

Result of choice C

Failure example: someone with higher status or more speaking experience breaks the silence, and their account tends to become the reference point.

Reason: Waiting alone does not change uneven opportunities to speak or the burden of contributing to the whole group.

Typical failure

The more the facilitator explains, the more participants see this as a place to hear the correct answer, making the first contribution even harder.

Recommendation for this case

Allow a short period of individual thinking, then talk in pairs, then bring just one brief contribution each to the whole group.

Reason: Thinking alone, talking in pairs, and then sharing with everyone lets all participants reach the sharing stage with an idea of their own.

Read 1-2-4-All

Practice pack: 15 minutes

A 15-minute rehearsal for the first contributions

Two roles: Facilitator / Participant and observer
Rehearsal: Ask ‘What would you like to take away today?’ and demonstrate 1 minute alone, 2 minutes in pairs, and 4 minutes in the whole group.
Observe: Seconds between reading the question and the first spoken contribution
What prompts one person's contribution to pass to the next person
The stage at which someone has still not spoken
Debrief: Which transition reduced the burden of speaking?
How would you form groups for the actual number of participants?
What to take away: Record the session question, time for each stage, and grouping method on one sheet.

Try this briefly with two colleagues, not the actual session's participants. The organiser separately judges safety and suitability for the real session.

Case 2

The purpose is too broad to define the ending

IAF competency reference B
Plan Appropriate Group Processes

1. Read the situation

‘Generate good ideas’ is the only goal, and the expected output has not been aligned with the client.

It is unclear who decides what counts as good
There are no criteria for the number or quality of ideas
Who receives what after the session has not been decided

2. Predict what comes next

After 45 minutes of idea generation, what could you select in the remaining time, and to whom could you hand it over?

Your prediction (not saved, even on this device)

Input is not sent and is lost when you leave the page. Do not enter personal information or the names of real people.

3. Choose an intervention

Choose the first intervention you would make in this situationA Define the output in one sentence and reserve the final 15 minutes for selection and handoverB Add two popular idea-generation methodsC Let participants decide at the end of the session

4. Check the result and reasons

Without JavaScript, all three choice results are shown.

Result of choice A (Recommended)

What happens: the necessary material and finishing conditions become clear, providing criteria for cutting activities along the way.

Reason: Planning backwards from the endpoint reserves time for generating, comparing, and selecting ideas.

Result of choice B

Failure example: more ideas emerge, but even less time remains for selection and handover.

Reason: More activity does not resolve the lack of clarity about the output and decision-maker.

Result of choice C

Failure example: negotiation about the purpose starts near the end, and it becomes clear that no one present has the necessary authority.

Reason: Defining the output is a design condition agreed with the client, not something that can be left entirely to facilitation on the day.

Typical failure

Generating more ‘good ideas’ becomes an end in itself, and selection criteria, responsibility, and the handover format are all left until the end.

Recommendation for this case

Agree with the client, in one sentence, on the output to remain after 90 minutes, who will assess it, and who takes it forward. Reserve the final 15 minutes.

Reason: Defining the output first avoids adding too many activities and creates a plan that can hand the work over for implementation.

Read Design Storyboards

Practice pack: 15 minutes

A 15-minute backwards-planning drill

Two roles: Client / Designer
Rehearsal: Receive a vague request, then ask follow-up questions using three blanks: output, assessor, and recipient.
Observe: Can you picture the output as a tangible item?
Were the decision-maker and recipient distinguished?
Was it possible to work backwards from the final activity?
Debrief: Which words remained ambiguous?
Whom should you check with before the start?
What to take away: Keep the sentence ‘At the end, who hands what to whom?’ and the plan for the final 15 minutes.

Try this briefly with two colleagues, not the actual session's participants. The organiser separately judges safety and suitability for the real session.

Case 3

Time is running out

IAF competency reference D
Guide Group to Appropriate and Useful Outcomes

1. Read the situation

Sharing has overrun and 12 minutes remain. The summary, next person responsible, and follow-up communication are still undecided.

The remaining sharing is estimated to take 20 minutes
There is an implicit expectation that everyone will report
Handover needs at least 8 minutes

2. Predict what comes next

If everyone continues reporting for the same length of time, who will take responsibility for which decisions at the end?

Your prediction (not saved, even on this device)

Input is not sent and is lost when you leave the page. Do not enter personal information or the names of real people.

3. Choose an intervention

Choose the first intervention you would make in this situationA Keep the planned full report from every participantB Stop sharing without explaining and let the facilitator summarise laterC State the remaining time, shorten sharing to one brief contribution each, and protect handover time

4. Check the result and reasons

Without JavaScript, all three choice results are shown.

Result of choice A

Failure example: the session ends when time runs out, leaving records and the next responsibility unresolved.

Reason: This treats fairness only as equal speaking time and loses the responsibility to hand over the session's outcomes.

Result of choice B

Failure example: participants cannot check the contributions that were not addressed or the decision process.

Reason: Not sharing the reason for the change and how the remainder will be handled damages trust in the facilitation.

Result of choice C (Recommended)

What happens: everyone understands the constraint, while both individual speaking opportunities and confirmation of who takes over next are protected.

Reason: Making the conditions for cuts transparent allows a shift to a time allocation that protects outputs and next actions.

Typical failure

Insisting on the original plan leads to omitting the responsible people and unfinished matters that must be checked after the session.

Recommendation for this case

State that 12 minutes remain and explain the change. Shorten sharing to one brief contribution each and reserve 8 minutes for handover.

Reason: Transparency about the change protects both individual speaking opportunities and confirmation of post-session responsibility.

Read Min Specs

Practice pack: 15 minutes

Recovering with 12 minutes left

Two roles: Facilitator / Timekeeper and participant
Rehearsal: During sharing, show a ‘12 minutes left’ card and demonstrate the change explanation, brief contributions, and handover.
Observe: Was the reason for the change given in one sentence?
Was a destination identified for material that could not be covered?
Were the responsible person and deadline repeated back?
Debrief: What was protected, and what was cut?
Where did you check participants' acceptance?
What to take away: Create an emergency card with the shortening announcement, conditions for cuts, and three handover items.

Try this briefly with two colleagues, not the actual session's participants. The organiser separately judges safety and suitability for the real session.

Language and implementation limits

English learning and preparation screens. Source-specific notices and resource-language limits apply.
Existing Excel, PDF, downloadable HTML, licence notice, and guide screenshots remain Japanese resources. Their new translation is separate later work, not an added condition for the first English-screen release.
Learning inputs are ephemeral. No network request, account, progress storage, analytics, form submission, purchase, reservation, or payment is added here.
Existing illustrations are AI-generated images, not records of actual events.