Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Assessment Framework for Practicing Facilitator

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is an on-going recognition of the need for facilitation to support different group settings. However, the skills and expertise required to successfully facilitate a group of participants to achieve their goal is a challenging task to achieve. There are a number of barriers towards facilitation: A facilitator needs to operate at many different levels at the same time; understand the politics within the group; encourage interaction within the group; and guide participants through tasks and activities, while balancing the needs of the group and the client to reach real outcomes. One of the key competences of a facilitator is flexibility, to adapt to varying circumstances. The complexity and dynamic nature of delivering an appropriate and effective facilitation service makes it therefore difficult to assess the facilitator’s performance in any facilitated session. In this paper we describe a framework in the form of an artefact developed to aid the facilitators in assessing their own performance in different meetings. Facilitation Service Assessment Framework (FSAF) allows facilitators to define metrics and measures in the context of facilitator’s goals. The assessment framework consists of a structure and a process which facilitators use to apply the framework to facilitation scenarios. Finally, the paper describes how experts evaluated FSAF in alternative scenarios by running a survey and then by conducting interviews.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adla A, Zarate P, Soubie J-L (2011) A proposal of toolkit for GDSS facilitators. Group Decis Negot J 20(1):57–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agres A, de Vreede GJ , Briggs RO (2004) A tale of two cities: case studies of GSS transition in two organizations. In: Proceedings of the 37th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences

  • Akao Y, Mazur GH (2003) The leading edge in QFD: past, present and future. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 20(1):20–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alabdulkarim AA, Macaulay LA (2007) ‘Facilitation patterns and citizen engagement”. Int J Technol Policy Manag (IJTPM) 7(2):122–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azadegan A, Macaulay L (2011) ‘Assessing the performance of e-facilitators’. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on collaboration technologies and systems (CTS). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

  • Basili V, Caldiera G, Rombach H (1994) The goal question metric approach. Encycl Softw Eng 2:528–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley T (1994) Facilitation: providing opportunities for learning. J Eur Ind Train 18(5):8–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bragge J, Merisalo-Rantanen H, Nurmi A, Tanner L (2007) A repeatable E-collaboration process based on think lets for multi-organization strategy development. Group Decis Negot 16(4):363–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clawson V, Bostrom R (1996) Research-driven facilitation training for computer-supported environments. Group Decis Negot J 5(1):7–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport T, Pearlson K (1998) Two cheers for the virtual office. Sloan Manag Rev 39(3):51–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vreede GJ, Vogel DR, Kolfschoten GL, Wien JS (2003) Fifteen years of in-situ GSS use: a comparison across time and national boundaries. Hawaii international conference on system science, Los Alamitos

  • Den Hengst M, Adkins M (2005) The demand rate of facilitation functions. In: Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii international conference on system sciences

  • Den Hengst M, Dean DL, Kolfschoten G, Chakrapani A (2006) Assessing the quality of collaborative processes. In: Proceedings of the 39th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS’06)

  • Dubbs S, Hayne S (1992) Distributed facilitation: a concept whose time has come?. Proceedings of CSCW92, pp 314–321

  • Duggan EW (2003) Generating systems requirements with facilitated group techniques. Hum-Comput Interact 18(4):373–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (1992) Strategy development and implementation—the role of a group decision support system. In: Kinney S, Bostrom B, Watson R (eds) Computer augmented teamwork: a guided tour. Van Nostrand, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • “Find a Facilitator” Becoming a certified facilitator [Website] Jan13, (2011), available:http://www.iafworld.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3328

  • Garavan TN, Morley M, Gunnigle P, McGuire D (2002) Human resource development and workplace learning: emerging theoretical perspectives and organizational practices. J Eur Ind Train 26 (2,3,4): 60–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith TL, Fuller MA, Northcraft GB (1998) Facilitator influence in group support systems: intended and unintended effects. Inf Syst Res 9(1):20–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertel G, Geister TS, Konradt U (2005) Managing virtual teams: a review of current empirical research. Hum Resour Manag Rev 15(1):69–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • “ICA Certified ToP Facilitators” Top facilitation [Website], Jan,13, (2011), Available:http://topfacilitation.net/Learning/CertifiedToPFacilitators.cfm

  • Jenkins JC, Jenkins RJ (2006) The 9 disciplines of a facilitator: leading groups by transforming yourself. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk P, Broussine M (2000) The politics of facilitation. J Workplace Learn Empl Couns Today 12(2):13–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten GL, Briggs RO, De Vreede GJ (2006a) Understanding the job requirements for collaboration technology support through a hybrid IT-end user job classification model: the case of collaboration engineering and facilitation. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMIS CPR conference on computer personnel research; Kennesaw, Georgia, USA 150–157

  • Kolfschoten GL, Duivenvoorde GPJ, Briggs RO, de Vreede G-J (2009) Towards an instrument to measure successfulness of collaborative effort from a participant perspective. In: Proceedings of the 42\(^{nd}\) Hawaii international conference on systems sciences (HICSS-42 ’09) big Island, HI: IEEE Comput Soc

  • Kolfschoten GL, Briggs RO, Vreede GJ De, Jacobs Peter HM, Appelman JH (2006b) A conceptual foundation of the thinkLet concept for collaboration engineering. Int. J. Hum-Comput Stud 64(7):611–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten G, Lukosch S, Verbraeck A, Valentin E, De Vreede GJ (2010) Cognitive learning efficiency through the use of design patterns in teaching. Comput Educ 54(3):652–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostner J (1996) Virtual leadership: secrets from the round table for multisite managers. Warner Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen T, Niederman F, Limayem M, Chan J (2009) The role of modelling in achieving information systems success: UML to the rescue? Inf Syst J 19(1):83–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macaulay LA (1999) Seven-layer model of the role of the facilitator in requirements engineering. Requir Eng J 4(1):38–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann T (2007) Facilitation: an art, science, skill - or all three? Build your expertise in facilitateon. Resource Productions, Bradford

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadzean ES, Nelson T (1998) Facilitating problem solving groups: a conceptual model. Leadersh Organ Dev J 19(1):6–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadzean E (2002) Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: part 2 - facilitator competencies. J Manag Decis 40(6):537–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murine GE (1980) Applying software quality metrics in the requirements analysis phase of a distributive system. In: Proceedings of the minnowbrook workshop, Blue Mountain Lake, New York

  • Paul S, Seetharaman P, Samarah I, Mykytyn PP (2004) Impact of heterogeneity and collaborative conflict management style on the performance of synchronous global virtual teams. Inf Manag J 41(3): 303–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauleen DJ, Yoong P (2004) Studying human-centred IT innovation using a grounded action learning approach. Qual Rep 9(1):137–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulsen D (2004) Leadership essentials: facilitation skills for improving group effectiveness. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM SIGUCCS conference on User services, pp 153–160

  • Pierce V, Cheesebrow D, Braun LM (2000) Facilitator competencies. Group Facil Res Appl J 2(2):24–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell A, Piccoli G, Ives B (2004) Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research. ACM Sigmis Database 35(1):6–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Rombach HD (1991) Practical benefits of goal-oriented measurement. In: Fenton N, Littlewood B (eds) Software reliability and metrics. Elsevier Science Publishing Co, London, pp 217–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarker S, Sahay S (2004) Implications of space and time for distributed work: an interpretive study of US-Norwegian systems development teams. Eur J Inf Syst 13(1):3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarker S, Sarker S, Nicholson DB, Joshi KD (2005) Knowledge transfer in virtual systems development teams: an exploratory study of four key enablers. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 48(2):201–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuman S (2005) The IAF handbook of group facilitation, best practices from the leading organization in facilitation. Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Imprint

  • Schwarz RM, Davidson A, Carlson P, McKinney S (2005) The skilled facilitator fieldbook: tips, tools, and tested methods for consultants, facilitators, managers, trainers, and coaches. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Sole D, Edmondson A (2002) Bridging knowledge gaps: learning in geographically dispersed cross-functional development teams. In: The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 587–604

  • Steves MP, Scholtz J (2005) A framework for evaluating collaborative systems in the real world. In: Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii international conference on system sciences

  • Tarmizi H, De Vreede GJ, Zigurs I (2006) Identifying challenges for facilitation in communities of practice. In: Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii international conference on system sciences

  • Thomas GJ (2005) Dimensions of facilitator education. Schuman S (ed), The IAF handbook of group facilitation: best practices from the leading organisation in facilitation. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp 525–541

  • Vivacqua AS, Marques LC, Ferreira MS, Jano MS (2009) Information needs for meeting facilitation. In: Groupware: design, implementation, and use lecture notes in computer science 5411:57–64

  • Vreede GJ, De Briggs RO, Van Duin R, Enserink B (2000) Athletics in electronic brainstorming: asynchronous brainstorming in very large groups. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Maui, HI. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press

  • Vreede GJ, De Niederman F, Paarlberg I (2001) Measuring participants’ perception on facilitation in group support systems meetings. In; Proceedings of the SIGCPR conference on Computer personnel research (CPR ’01) San Diego, California, United States; ACM Press, New York, pp 73–181

  • Vreede GJ, De Niederman F, Paarlberg I (2002) Towards an instrument to measure participants’ perceptions n facilitation in group support systems meetings. Group Decis Negot 11(1):127–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao L, Macaulay L, Adams J, Verschueren P (2008) A pattern language for designing e-business architecture. J Syst Softw 81(8):1272–1287

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University, City Campus Howard Street, Sheffield, S1 1WB, UK

    Aida Azadegan

  2. Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5015, 2600 GA, Delft, The Netherlands

    Gwendolyn Kolfschoten

Authors
  1. Aida Azadegan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gwendolyn Kolfschoten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aida Azadegan.

Appendix

Appendix

  1. 1.

    To take care of political aspects of facilitation (i.e. dealing with internal power struggles, preventing group domination, etc.) to ensure participation and effective communication with participants. How would you rate the facilitator in applying appropriate political skills to ensure effective participation and communication with participants?

  2. 2.

    To take care of political aspects of facilitation (i.e. dealing with internal power struggles, preventing group domination, etc.) in order to recognize diversity and ensure inclusiveness. How would you rate facilitator’s use of political skills to manage recognizing diversity and ensuring inclusiveness and psychological safety of participants?

  3. 3.

    To take care of political aspects of facilitation (i.e. dealing with internal power struggles, preventing group domination, etc.) in order to manage group conflicts. How would you rate facilitator’s use of political skills in order to manage group conflicts?

  4. 4.

    To take care of political aspects of facilitation (i.e. dealing with internal power struggles, preventing group domination, etc.) in order to guide the group to reach agreement How would you rate facilitator’s use of political skills in order for the group to make decisions and reach agreement and consensus?

  5. 5.

    To take care of political aspects of facilitation (i.e. dealing with internal power struggles, preventing group domination, etc.) in order to demonstrate neutrality and trust on group potentials How would you rate facilitator’s use of political skills in demonstrating neutrality and objectivity based on trust in group’s potentials?

  6. 6.

    To take care of social aspects of meeting facilitation (managing cultural, learning or individual differences, etc.) to ensure effective participation and communication with participants. How would you rate the facilitator in applying appropriate social to ensure effective participation and constructive communication among participants?

  7. 7.

    To take care of social aspects of meeting facilitation (managing cultural, learning or individual differences, etc.) in order to recognize diversity and ensure inclusiveness. How would you rate facilitator’s use of social skills to manage diversity and to ensure inclusiveness of the stakeholders offering them a safe environment?

  8. 8.

    To take care of social aspects of meeting facilitation (managing cultural, learning or individual differences, etc.) in order to manage group conflicts. How would you rate facilitator’s use of social skills in order to manage group conflicts?

  9. 9.

    To take care of social aspects of meeting facilitation (managing cultural, learning or individual differences, etc.) in order to facilitate group self-awareness about the task. How would you rate facilitator’s use of social skills in order to facilitate group ownership and self-awareness about the task?

  10. 10.

    To take care of social aspects of meeting facilitation (cultural, learning or individual differences, etc.) in order to guide the group to reach agreement How would you rate facilitator’s use of social skills in order to guide the group to make decisions and reach agreement and consensus?

  11. 11.

    To take care of social aspects of meeting facilitation managing (cultural, learning or individual differences, etc.) in order to show positive attitude and demonstrate belief in group. How would you rate facilitator’s use of social skills in order to motivate group by showing positive attitude and demonstrating belief in group?

  12. 12.

    To take care of social aspects of meeting facilitation (managing cultural, learning or individual differences, etc.) in order to demonstrate neutrality and trust on group potentials How would you rate facilitator’s use of social skills in demonstrating neutrality and objectivity based on trust in group’s potentials?

  13. 13.

    To use appropriate personal behaviour to manage the sessions. How would you rate facilitator’s personal behaviour in managing the sessions in the meeting?

  14. 14.

    To use appropriate personal behaviour in order to demonstrate neutrality and trust on group potentials How would you rate facilitator’s personal behaviour in demonstrating neutrality and objectivity based on trust in group’s potentials?

  15. 15.

    To select and apply the right method to manage all the sessions. How would you rate the facilitator in applying the right method to facilitate all the session?

  16. 16.

    To use the most appropriate method for preparing time and space and supporting group processes. How would you rate the facilitator in using the right facilitation method for preparing time and space to support the group processes?

  17. 17.

    To ensure using and applying the right method to demonstrate proper participation and communication skills. How would you rate the facilitator in using the right method to ensure best participation and communication with participants?

  18. 18.

    To apply the right method in order to recognize diversity and ensure inclusiveness. How would you rate facilitator’s skills in applying the right method to recognize diversity and ensure inclusiveness?

  19. 19.

    To apply the right method in order to manage group conflicts. How would you rate facilitator’s skills in applying the right method to manage group conflicts?

  20. 20.

    To use the most appropriate method in order to evoke group creativity. How would you rate the facilitator in using the appropriate method to evoke group creativity?

  21. 21.

    To apply the right method in order to guide the group to reach agreement How would you rate the facilitator in using the appropriate method to guide the group make decision and reach agreement and consensus?

  22. 22.

    To use the best activities (i.e. taking care of the agenda, keeping record of the meeting and documentation) in order to guide the group to reach agreement How would you rate the facilitator in using the right activities in order to guide to guide the group make decision and reach agreement and consensus?

  23. 23.

    To take the best advantage of technology in order to prepare time and space to support group processes. How would you rate facilitator’s ability in appropriate use of the technology in order to prepare time and space for supporting group processes?

  24. 24.

    To take the best advantage of technology in order to facilitate group self-awareness about the task. How would you rate the facilitator in using the right technology to facilitate group self-awareness about the task?

  25. 25.

    To take the best advantage of technology in order to guide the group to reach agreement How would you rate the facilitator in using the right technology to guide guide the group make decision and reach agreement and consensus?

  26. 26.

    To create a conductive environment and taking advantage of the learning facilities to effectively manage multisession meetings. How would you rate facilitator’s knowledge and ability in using the right facilities and learning environment in order to manage the multi-session meeting?

  27. 27.

    To create a conductive environment and taking advantage of the learning facilities to evoke group creativity. How would you rate facilitator’s skills in terms of taking advantage of the environment and learning facilities to evoke group creativity?

  28. 28.

    To create a conductive environment and taking advantage of the learning facilities to facilitate group self-awareness about the task. How would you rate facilitator’s skills in terms of taking advantage of the learning environment to facilitate group ownership and self-awareness about the task?

  29. 29.

    To create a conductive environment and taking advantage of the learning facilities to guide the group to reach agreement How would you rate facilitator’s skills in terms of taking advantage of the learning environment to manage diversity and to ensure inclusiveness of the stakeholders offering them a safe environment?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Azadegan, A., Kolfschoten, G. An Assessment Framework for Practicing Facilitator. Group Decis Negot 23, 1013–1045 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9332-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9332-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation