What is it?

Dynamic Facilitation is a method for helping groups tackle complex, messy problems by following the natural flow of conversation rather than imposing structure. The facilitator captures everything participants say onto four charts — Solutions, Data, Concerns, and Problem Statements — without filtering or organising. Instead of managing the discussion, the facilitator protects each person's thinking and draws out what they really care about. The result is often a breakthrough insight or creative solution that emerges organically from the group, rather than being forced through a linear process.

Also Known As

• DF
• Choice-Creating
• Creative Insight Council

When to Use It

• When a group is stuck on a problem that logical analysis hasn't solved
• For issues where people have strong feelings and diverse perspectives
• When previous attempts at structured problem-solving have failed
• To surface the real concerns hiding beneath surface-level disagreements
• When you need creative breakthroughs rather than incremental improvements
• For wicked problems where the problem definition itself is contested
• When a group needs to feel genuinely heard before they can move forward
• To build shared understanding across different stakeholder groups

When NOT to Use It

• For simple problems with obvious solutions — it's overkill
• When a decision has already been made and you just need buy-in
• If the group is larger than 12 people (it becomes unwieldy)
• When there's a tight deadline and you need a quick answer
• For highly technical problems requiring specialist expertise rather than collective wisdom
• If participants aren't willing to speak openly
• When the facilitator is new to the method — it requires practice to do well

Dynamic Facilitation was developed by Jim Rough in the 1980s while working with lumber mill crews in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Rough noticed that traditional facilitation methods shut down creative thinking, so he experimented with following the group's energy instead of controlling it. He discovered that capturing ideas on four separate charts allowed breakthrough solutions to emerge naturally. The method has since been applied to community decision-making, organisational change, and public policy through processes like Wisdom Councils.

What You Need

Group size: 4-12 participants (ideal: 6-8). Below 4 lacks diversity; above 12 becomes hard to give everyone adequate airtime.

Time required:

• Minimum: 90 minutes (enough for initial exploration)
• Typical: 2-3 hours
• Extended: Half-day or multiple sessions for complex issues

Space:

• Room with four wall areas or flip chart stands for the four charts.
• Participants should be able to see all charts from their seats.

Materials:

• Four flip chart pads or large paper sheets
• Markers in multiple colours
• Masking tape or blu-tack for posting charts
• Comfortable seating arranged so everyone can see each other and all four charts
• Water and refreshments (sessions can be intense)

The Process

Setup

1. Prepare four charts, each with a clear heading at the top:
   • Solutions (or "Possible Solutions")
   • Data (or "Facts and Information")
   • Concerns (or "Worries and Obstacles")
   • Problem Statements (or "How might we...?" or "The real problem is...")
2. Post the four charts on walls where everyone can see them throughout the session.
3. Arrange seating in a rough semi-circle facing the charts. Avoid boardroom-style seating.
4. Have plenty of spare flip chart paper ready — you'll fill pages quickly.
5. Brief yourself on the issue but don't over-prepare. You need to stay genuinely curious.

Step 1: Opening and Invitation

Time: 5-10 minutes

Purpose: To create safety and explain that this conversation will feel different from typical meetings.

1. Welcome participants and briefly explain the format: "This is going to feel different from a normal meeting. I'm going to capture everything you say on these four charts. There's no agenda, no voting, no pressure to reach consensus. We're going to follow your thinking wherever it goes."
2. Point to each chart and explain: "Solutions — any ideas you have. Data — facts, information, experiences. Concerns — worries, obstacles, what might go wrong. Problem Statements — different ways of framing what we're actually trying to solve."
3. Reassure participants: "There are no wrong answers. If you say something and then change your mind, that's fine. I'll capture it anyway because often those 'wrong' ideas lead somewhere important."
4. Ask someone to start: "Who has something they want to say about this issue? It could be a solution, a concern, a fact — anything."

Watch for: The temptation to over-explain. Keep the opening brief. The method reveals itself through practice.

Step 2: Following the First Speaker

Time: 10-20 minutes (varies based on depth)

Purpose: To demonstrate deep listening and show the group how the process works.

1. When the first person speaks, listen with full attention. Don't interrupt.
2. When they pause, reflect back what you heard and check: "So you're saying... Is that right?"
3. Write their contribution on the appropriate chart. If they offered a solution, write it on Solutions. If they expressed a concern, write it on Concerns. Use their words, not your interpretation.
4. Draw them out further: "Say more about that" or "What's behind that for you?" or "What would that look like?"
5. Keep going until they feel fully heard. You'll notice a shift — they'll relax, nod, or say "Yes, exactly."
6. Only then, turn to the group: "Who else has something?"

Watch for: The urge to move on too quickly. Most facilitators underestimate how long it takes for someone to feel truly heard. Stay with each person longer than feels comfortable.

Step 3: Welcoming All Contributions

Time: 45-90 minutes (the heart of the session)

Purpose: To fill the charts with the group's collective thinking while protecting each person's contribution.

1. As each person speaks, capture their contribution on the relevant chart. One idea might touch multiple charts — that's fine, write it where it fits best or on multiple charts.
2. When someone disagrees with a previous point, welcome it: "Great, so you see it differently. Tell me more." Write their view without erasing or arguing with the earlier point.
3. If someone offers a solution, ask: "What problem does that solve?" Write their answer on Problem Statements.
4. If someone raises a concern, ask: "What would need to be true for that not to be a problem?" Their answer often reveals a new solution.
5. When energy dips or the conversation circles, look at Problem Statements: "We've got several different ways of framing this problem. Which one feels most important right now?"
6. Keep filling charts. When one fills up, tape it to the wall and start a fresh page.

Watch for:

• Your own judgement. If you find yourself thinking "that's not helpful," catch yourself. Write it down anyway.
• Dominant voices. If someone hasn't spoken, invite them gently: "James, you've been quiet. What's on your mind?"
• Premature convergence. If the group starts rallying around one solution too early, ask: "What concerns might we be missing?"

Step 4: Noticing Shifts and Breakthroughs

Time: Ongoing throughout, but often crystallises in the final third

Purpose: To recognise when genuine insight or convergence is emerging.

1. Watch for moments when the group's energy shifts. Someone might say something that makes others lean in, nod, or go quiet in a thoughtful way.
2. When you notice this, slow down: "Something just happened there. What was it?"
3. Breakthroughs often sound like: "Oh, the real problem isn't X, it's Y" or "What if we combined these two ideas?" or "I've just realised why I was so stuck on this."
4. When a breakthrough emerges, capture it carefully. Ask the person to say more. Check if others resonate.
5. Don't force convergence. Sometimes the breakthrough is simply seeing the problem clearly, not solving it.

Watch for: The temptation to declare victory too soon. A genuine breakthrough feels different from polite agreement. People's body language opens up. There's often laughter or visible relief.

Step 5: Harvesting and Closing

Time: 15-20 minutes

Purpose: To help the group make sense of what emerged and identify next steps.

1. Step back and review all four charts with the group: "Let's look at what we've created together."
2. Ask: "What stands out to you? What surprised you?"
3. If a clear solution or direction emerged, name it: "It seems like there's energy around... Does that feel right?"
4. If no single solution emerged, honour that: "We've mapped this issue in a way we hadn't before. The clarity is in seeing the full picture."
5. Identify concrete next steps: "What needs to happen next? Who will do what by when?"
6. Close with appreciation: "Thank you for your honesty and creativity. This is hard work."

Watch for: Rushing the close. Even if time is short, give people a moment to absorb what happened.

Facilitator Guidance

What Makes This Work

Dynamic Facilitation works because it removes the pressure to be right, agree, or reach conclusions quickly. When people feel genuinely heard — not just listened to politely — they relax their defensive positions and become curious about others' perspectives. The four charts serve as a "container" that holds all the thinking without forcing premature organisation. Over time, patterns emerge that no one could have predicted or engineered. The facilitator's job is to protect the process, not direct the outcome. This requires trusting that groups have wisdom that will surface if given the right conditions.

Common Pitfalls

• Facilitating too much: The biggest mistake is reverting to traditional facilitation — summarising, synthesising, asking leading questions. Your job is to capture and draw out, not to guide toward a conclusion.
• Moving on too quickly: Most facilitators change speakers before the current speaker feels complete. Stay longer than feels natural. Ask "What else?" at least twice.
• Putting ideas on the wrong chart: It matters less than you think. If someone's "solution" is really a concern, write it where they seem to want it. You can always add it to another chart later.
• Trying to make the charts neat: Messy charts are fine. Arrows, circles, and additions show the thinking evolved. Don't rewrite for tidiness.
• Defending previous contributions: When someone contradicts an earlier point, don't protect the first speaker. Just capture the new perspective with equal respect.
• Expecting a breakthrough every time: Sometimes the value is in the shared understanding, not a eureka moment. Don't manufacture false convergence.

Adaptations

• Virtual delivery: Use a digital whiteboard (Miro, Mural, or similar) with four clearly labelled areas. Share your screen and type contributions in real time. It's slower but workable. Use video so you can read body language.
• Smaller groups (3-4): Works well, though you may need to prompt more. The intimacy can actually deepen the conversation.
• Shorter timeframes (60 mins): Possible but limited. Focus on mapping the issue rather than reaching resolution. Frame it as "phase one" with follow-up.
• Longer or multiple sessions: For complex issues, use the first session to fill the charts, then reconvene to review and go deeper. The overnight processing often generates new insights.
• Combining with other methods: Dynamic Facilitation can be used as the "divergent" phase before a more structured convergence process. Just don't announce this in advance — it undermines the open-ended quality.

Real-World Applications

Product team prioritisation: A software team was deadlocked over which features to build next. Two hours of Dynamic Facilitation revealed that the real conflict wasn't about features but about who their primary customer was. Once they aligned on that, the feature priorities became obvious.

Community planning: A neighbourhood association used Dynamic Facilitation to address conflict over a proposed development. By the end of the session, residents who'd arrived as opponents discovered shared concerns about traffic and green space that led to a joint proposal to the council.

Leadership team strategy: An executive team kept having the same circular debate about international expansion. Dynamic Facilitation surfaced that one leader had unspoken concerns about family relocation that were driving their resistance. Once named, the team could address the real issue.

Healthcare improvement: A hospital department used the method to tackle patient wait times. Instead of the expected process improvements, the breakthrough was recognising that staff were hiding problems to avoid blame. The solution was changing the reporting culture, not the workflow.

Merger integration: Two merged teams weren't collaborating despite management pressure. Dynamic Facilitation revealed mutual misconceptions about each other's competence and intentions. Simply hearing each other's data and concerns dissolved much of the resistance.