Most facilitation work begins long before participants gather. Underneath the visible elements of a session, such as the agenda, the activities and the outputs, sits a quieter layer of choices that shape how people will think, speak and decide together. IAF Core Competency A2, Design and Customise Applications to Meet Client Needs, brings attention to this early stage. It reminds us that design is not a technical exercise. It is an inquiry into what will best serve the purpose and the people in front of us.

This competency appears early in the IAF framework for good reason. A design that fits the context strengthens the work from the beginning. A design that ignores it can create strain, confusion or hesitation before the session has even started.

I once worked with a department preparing for a significant shift in structure. Their request was for a one day workshop to explore future ways of working. It sounded simple, yet early conversations revealed uncertainty, fatigue and a reluctance to voice concerns. A single workshop would have produced activity but not clarity. Instead, we shaped a series of shorter conversations that allowed people to articulate what the change meant for them and what support they needed. The design became a container for understanding rather than a race towards solutions. It worked because it grew from what was truly needed, not only from what was requested.

The four strands of effective design

In practice, Design and Customise Applications rests on four strands:

  1. Analysing the organisational environment
  2. Diagnosing the client need
  3. Creating appropriate designs to achieve intended outcomes
  4. Predefining a quality product and outcomes with the client

These are not steps to be completed in order. They are threads woven through the relationship from the first conversation to the closing debrief.

Analysing the organisational environment

This strand is about paying attention to the climate in which the work will take place. Every organisation carries its own rhythm, pressures, and patterns of communication. Some move quickly but avoid depth; others seek consensus but struggle to decide. Understanding this environment is not about diagnosing faults but recognising what the design must hold. A structure that supports honest dialogue in one setting may feel uncomfortable or unsafe in another. When the environment is understood, design choices become grounded rather than speculative.

Diagnosing the client need

Requests arrive in the language of tasks. Needs live beneath them. A client may ask for a workshop, but the real need may be alignment, a renewed sense of trust, or a shared decision that has been postponed. This strand involves exploring what the client hopes will be different afterwards and what conditions are required for that shift to occur. Naming these early prevents designing for the wrong problem. When this conversation takes place with openness, the design becomes anchored in purpose rather than preference.

Creating appropriate designs to achieve intended outcomes

This strand turns purpose into experience. A design is not a collection of techniques; it is a sequence of moments chosen to help people think well together. It involves decisions about pacing, group size, the structure of conversations, and the questions that will guide reflection. Good design feels as though it belongs to the group, even before they walk into the room. It is less about creativity and more about fit—fit with the purpose, the people, and the organisational environment.

Predefining a quality product and outcomes with the client

Here the focus turns to clarity. Facilitator and client agree on what the work will produce and what success will look like. Sometimes the outcome is tangible—a plan, themes, a set of principles. Sometimes it is relational—renewed confidence, clearer expectations, a sense of shared ownership. When both sides hold the same picture of “done,” the work feels aligned and progress becomes measurable. Without this clarity, even thoughtful designs can leave clients uncertain about what has been achieved.

Holding the strands together

Each strand strengthens the others. Understanding the organisational environment without diagnosing the real need offers context but little direction. Diagnosing the need without a thoughtful design creates clarity that never finds expression. A design that is well-crafted but not anchored in shared outcomes risks producing activity without meaning. And clear outcomes without an understanding of people’s lived reality may look compelling on paper but fail to land with the people who must bring them to life.

Our task as facilitators is to keep all four strands visible from the beginning to the end of the engagement. They are not safeguards; they are conditions for depth. When they are tended with care, the design becomes more than an agenda. It becomes a structure that helps people do their best thinking and make commitments they can sustain. When the strands hold together, the work has a chance not only to meet expectations but to reveal what else might be possible.

Reflections on the strands

Culture: A key influence on the organisational environment

Every facilitation design is shaped by the culture it enters. Culture is not the list of values pinned to a wall. It is the way authority moves, how people relate to one another, and what is considered safe or unsafe to say. Before designing any process, it helps to understand the dominant culture well enough to know what it will support and what it will resist. Charles Handy’s work offers one practical way to explore this through four patterns of organisational life. None are good or bad. They simply shape the conditions in which our design must take root.

Power culture: In a power culture, influence is held by a small number of individuals and decisions tend to be made quickly. People often look to a central figure before committing to action. This environment can feel energising because of its clarity, but it can also make groups cautious about speaking openly. When facilitating here, the design may need to create space for quieter voices without undermining the authority structures people rely on. Honesty becomes possible when decision-makers endorse the work and signal that reflection is welcome.

Role culture: In a role culture, structure and clarity are highly valued. People know their responsibilities and take pride in fulfilling them. Processes guide behaviour and consistency is seen as a strength. This predictability can be reassuring, yet it can also make participants hesitant to move outside formal boundaries. A design that works in this environment usually provides clear instructions and steady pacing. People appreciate knowing what will happen next and why. Reflection becomes easier when the process feels orderly and well held.

Task culture: In a task culture, teams form around problems and dissolve when the work is done. Flexibility, expertise and collaboration are central. People often thrive in smaller groups where they can contribute ideas and test possibilities. Facilitation in this setting benefits from designs that encourage creativity and movement, with enough structure to keep momentum. Groups like these respond well to clear challenges and opportunities to co create. They may need support in slowing down when the work requires deeper conversation rather than rapid progress.

Person culture: In a person culture, the organisation exists to support the individuals within it. Autonomy is highly valued and people often hold specialist expertise. Influence comes from knowledge rather than hierarchy. This environment can feel empowering, yet collective action sometimes requires careful negotiation. Facilitation here benefits from designs that respect individual independence while also offering shared purpose. Dialogue works best when people are invited rather than directed. Time for reflection is essential, as participants may need space to integrate their perspectives with those of the group.

Reflective questions

As you prepare to understand the environment you are designing for:

  • Which cultural pattern seems most present in the client’s early conversations.

  • How do authority and influence appear to shape participation.

  • What parts of the culture will support honest dialogue and what parts may limit it.

  • How might the culture respond to uncertainty, challenge or silence.

  • What design choices will help the group work comfortably within their culture while still stretching it in useful ways.

Diagnosis: Looking beneath the presenting problem

Early in any design process, clients often share what can be thought of as the presenting problem. It is the version of the issue that feels acceptable to name and practical to address: a request for better communication, a session to clarify priorities, or a workshop to strengthen collaboration. These requests matter. They are genuine. But they are usually only the visible part of a larger landscape.

Beneath the presenting problem sits the underlying need. This is the part people feel but may not yet be ready to express. It may involve unspoken tensions, decisions that lack ownership, expectations that have drifted, or changes that have unsettled relationships. The presenting problem describes what is happening; the underlying problem explains why it matters. Until both are understood, design remains at risk of addressing the symptoms rather than the work itself.

This distinction shapes facilitation design. If we design only for the presenting problem, we risk creating well-structured sessions that produce activity but little change. If we design with an understanding of the underlying need, the work has a chance to reach the conversations that will genuinely move people forward.

Exploring this difference does not require probing or analysis. It requires curiosity, spaciousness, and questions that invite reflection rather than justification. Asking what prompted the request now, what has made the issue more difficult recently, or what would feel different if the work were successful often brings the deeper context into view. Once this context is visible, the design can be shaped around the real work, not just the stated one.

Reflective questions

As you prepare to design your next facilitation:

  • What clues in the client’s initial request might point to a deeper need or unspoken tension?

  • How will you create space for the client to explore what sits beneath the surface without feeling challenged or exposed?

  • What questions could help you distinguish between what the client wants addressed and what the group may actually need?

  • How will you test whether you have understood the underlying issue well enough to design with confidence rather than assumption?

  • What conditions will the design need to create so the deeper issue can be approached safely and usefully?

Dilemmas: Choosing the right kind of intervention

Every facilitation design is shaped by the interventions we choose. These interventions are not techniques. They are choices about how to shape the work so that people can think well together. Some interventions bring clarity, others create structure, and others help groups make sense of what they are discovering. When selected with care, they create conditions in which people can participate with confidence. When chosen without attention, they can overwhelm or underwhelm the group. Five categories of intervention offer a practical way to think about these choices.

Framing interventions: Framing interventions help the group understand why they are in the room and what they are working towards. They clarify purpose, outcomes, and boundaries so that people feel anchored. A strong frame reduces anxiety and makes it possible for participants to contribute without guessing what matters.

A simple example is the opening to a strategy workshop. Rather than beginning with tasks, you might invite the group to reflect on what they hope the work will make possible. You then offer the agreed outcomes and the parts of the conversation that will be essential to reach them. This combination of invitation and clarity is a framing intervention. It signals direction without removing choice.

Design interventions: Design interventions shape the structure of the work. They determine the rhythm of the session, the movement between large and small groups, the balance between reflection and action, and the level of detail required. A good design respects the culture of the organisation and meets the group at a pace they can follow.

A design intervention might involve breaking a large group into trios for reflective conversation before bringing them back to work on shared themes. This supports participation while preventing early dominance by a few voices. Another example is building in longer pauses after complex questions so people have time to think rather than rush towards surface-level answers. These choices shape how the work unfolds.

Process interventions: Process interventions take place while the work is happening. They attend to the dynamics that surface in the room. Sometimes a group is speaking openly. Sometimes it is holding something back. Sometimes a single voice begins to dominate. Process interventions help the facilitator respond to these moments in a way that supports the group.

An example might be pausing a discussion when energy rises and asking the group what is happening for them. This interrupts unhelpful patterns and invites reflection. Another example is noticing that quieter participants have not spoken and offering them the chance to contribute before the group moves on. These interventions support psychological safety and shared ownership.

Meaning making interventions: Meaning making interventions help the group interpret and integrate what they are hearing. They prevent the session from becoming a list of ideas or competing viewpoints. Instead, they invite the group to notice patterns, connections, and insights that may otherwise remain invisible.

An example is asking the group, after a round of discussion, what themes they see emerging across their conversations. Another is inviting them to identify what surprised them and what they are beginning to understand differently. These interventions slow the process at the right moment so that learning can take shape.

Decision and commitment interventions: Decision and commitment interventions help the group move from understanding to action. They clarify what the group is willing to commit to and what still needs further work. These interventions do not force consensus. They help the group make decisions that feel honest and sustainable.

An example is asking participants, near the end of a session, what commitments they are ready to make and what support they will need. Another is clarifying which decisions can be made in the room and which require further conversation elsewhere. These interventions help the work continue beyond the session.

A blended example from practice

I once worked with a cross departmental leadership group struggling with unclear priorities. Their request was for a planning workshop, but early conversations revealed fatigue and frustration. The design needed to hold both. We began with a framing intervention by naming the purpose of the day. The aim was to surface the pressures they were facing and agree the two or three priorities that mattered most. We clarified what success would look like and what was out of scope.

The design interventions created a rhythm they could manage. We used short reflective rounds in small groups to lower the pressure and help people hear themselves think. We built in breaks to prevent overwhelm and left space for slower conversation where needed.

Process interventions were used throughout. At one point, two participants began debating a past decision. The energy shifted. I paused the discussion and asked the group what they needed in order to continue. This opened a short but honest moment of recalibration.

As themes emerged, we moved into meaning making interventions. The group identified the pressures that were affecting them most and the assumptions driving their decisions. A shared understanding began to form.

Finally, decision and commitment interventions brought the work to a close. The group agreed on three priorities and named one action each would take within the next month. These commitments were modest but real.

The session worked not because of a single technique, but because the interventions matched the culture, the purpose, and the energy of the group.

Reflective questions

As you consider the interventions needed for your next design:

  • What framing will help the group understand why the work matters.

  • How can the design give the group enough structure without reducing their freedom to think.

  • What process interventions might be needed to support honest participation.

  • Where will the group need help to make sense of what they are discovering.

  • What kind of commitments will be realistic for this group given their culture and current pressures.

Ten practical tips for designing and customising applications in facilitation

Here are ten reflections you can weave into your practice. Each invites a shift in how we listen, interpret and shape the process. They are not methods. They are ways of approaching design with the steadiness and attention that good work requires.

1. Begin with the story, not the format

Before discussing activities or structure, ask the client what is happening in their world. Stories reveal more than summaries because they hold emotion, context and meaning. When people speak in stories, they show you what they are living with, what they hope for and what they fear losing. Understanding this gives the design its first anchor. It also prevents you from solving the wrong problem.

2. Treat the initial request as a starting point, not the brief

Most requests arrive neat and incomplete. A workshop is rarely the whole answer. Beneath the request often sits uncertainty, frustration or an unspoken decision that needs attention. Exploring what prompted the request now, and what has made the issue more pressing, helps you design for the real need rather than the surface description. It also builds a more honest partnership with the client.

3. Let purpose guide every choice

When design decisions feel complicated, return to the purpose of the work. Ask what outcome you want to make possible and let that guide the structure. Purpose simplifies. It helps you avoid adding activities out of habit or anxiety. It keeps the design clean and stops you from creating more process than the group can carry. A design grounded in purpose feels lighter and more coherent.

4. Shape the design around the people, not the agenda

Every group carries its own energy, history and way of relating. Some move quickly, others cautiously. Some speak freely, others hold back until trust builds. A design that fits the people will support them. A design that ignores them will ask them to move in ways that do not feel natural or safe. Taking time to understand the people first ensures the process meets them where they are.

5. Name constraints early and design with them, not against them

Time, availability, authority and emotional readiness all shape what is possible. These constraints are not obstacles. They are boundaries that help the design stay honest. When constraints are named early, the design becomes more grounded. It becomes clearer what can be achieved in the time available and what will need to continue beyond the session. Designing with constraints often brings more focus than designing without them.

6. Avoid the temptation to impress

Facilitators sometimes add unnecessary complexity in an attempt to demonstrate expertise. Groups rarely need spectacle. What they need is clarity, space and questions that help them think well. Simple structures, when chosen with care, generate more insight than elaborate techniques used to fill time. When the design is not trying to impress, participants often feel more at ease and more willing to engage.

7. Build in moments that allow people to slow down

Reflection is usually the first thing squeezed when time feels tight, yet it is where understanding forms. Without moments to pause, the group risks moving from task to task without integrating what they are learning. A design without stillness may produce activity but not clarity. Slowing down enables people to speak with more intention and hear themselves think.

8. Use small groups generously and intentionally

People speak more freely in smaller settings. Small groups distribute ownership, reduce performance pressure and allow quieter voices to surface. They also help participants explore their own thinking before joining a larger conversation. Using small groups well can turn a room of observers into a community of contributors.

9. Check alignment regularly as the design evolves

Design is not a single moment. It is a series of choices that unfold over time. As you refine the structure, return to outcomes with the client to ensure the work still serves the purpose. Ask whether anything has shifted in the environment or in their expectations. Quiet adjustments made early prevent misunderstandings later.

10. Hold the design lightly on the day

No design survives contact with the room exactly as written. Groups have their own pace, questions and ways of responding. Holding the design lightly means staying faithful to the purpose while responding to what the group needs. Flexibility is not a deviation from the work. It is part of the craft. The best designs are those that guide without becoming rigid.

Review your most recent facilitation design

Take a few minutes to pause and look back at a recent piece of design work. Write down your reflections. You may begin to notice patterns that will strengthen your future practice.

  • Did you understand the organisational environment well enough to shape a design that felt grounded in reality?
  • Did you and the client uncover the true need beneath the initial request, or did the work proceed on assumptions?
  • Was the design clearly aligned to the outcomes you had agreed on together?
  • Did the flow create the kinds of conversations the group genuinely needed, not just the ones that were easiest to facilitate?
  • When the work began, did the design remain helpful, or did the room require something different, and how did you respond?

The payoff

When you invest in designing and customising with care, you do more than prepare an agenda. You create a structure that allows people to settle, to think, and to speak with honesty. You align purpose and process so that energy can be spent on the work, not on navigating confusion.

Thoughtful design does not guarantee transformation, but it creates the conditions in which transformation becomes possible. It ensures that the group’s time is honoured, their contributions are used well, and the outcomes reflect what truly matters.

That is why this competency sits alongside working partnerships at the beginning of the framework. When design is grounded, responsive, and purpose-led, it becomes a foundation strong enough to carry meaningful, lasting change.

Frequently Asked Questions about IAF Core Competency A2: Design and Customise Applications

1. What is the core purpose of design & customise applications ?

A2 focuses on turning intention into a thoughtful design that meets the real needs of the client and the group. It involves understanding the organisational environment, exploring what sits beneath the presenting problem, and shaping a process that people can follow without strain. At its heart, A2 is about creating conditions in which meaningful conversation and genuine progress become possible. It is less about tools and more about judgement, attention and partnership.

2. How do I know if I am designing for the real need and not the stated one?

Look for what people hesitate to say. Listen to what has made the issue urgent now. Notice the gap between the task described and the experience they are carrying. Real needs tend to sound like shifts, such as greater clarity, renewed trust, shared direction or help navigating uncertainty. When you invite the client to explore these layers, the design becomes anchored in purpose rather than assumption. If both of you can describe what will feel different after the work, you are designing for the real need.

3. What makes a design “fit” an organisation’s culture?

A design fits the culture when people feel able to participate without working against their own norms. In a fast moving culture, shorter cycles of discussion may feel more natural. In a cautious culture, people may need smaller groups before speaking in public. In a hierarchical culture, clarity about who decides can free participants to contribute. Fit does not mean reinforcing limiting patterns. It means understanding the culture well enough to design a process that supports honest work rather than triggering defensiveness.

4. How much structure should a design include?

The right amount of structure is the amount that supports the group without taking over. Too much structure can make the session feel controlled or rushed. Too little can leave participants unsure how to contribute. A good starting point is to provide enough shape so people know what to expect and enough space so they can influence the direction. Look at the group’s history, energy and confidence. If the group is tired, overwhelmed or hesitant, more structure may offer reassurance. If they are experienced and energetic, lighter structure may help them think more freely.

5. What if I am unsure which facilitation methods to use?

Return to purpose. Ask yourself what the group needs to do in order to achieve the intended outcome. Do they need to build insight, explore options, resolve differences or make commitments. Once this is clear, the methods become easier to choose. A well chosen question often does more than a complicated technique. Start with what the group needs to think about, then select the structure that will help them do that thinking well.

6. How should I adapt the design when conditions change?

Begin by returning to the agreed purpose and outcomes. Check whether these still hold. If they do, adjust the design while keeping the direction steady. If the purpose has shifted, discuss with the client what now matters most. Adaptation is easier when the design is built around intention rather than activities. When the purpose is clear, there is usually more than one way to reach it. Adaptation then becomes a natural part of the work rather than a sign that something has gone wrong.

7. What does a “quality product” look like in design & customise applications?

A quality product is the agreed result of the work. It may be a set of insights, a shared understanding, decisions, principles or a prioritised plan. What matters is that the client and facilitator share the same picture of usefulness. A quality product does not need to be polished or perfect. It needs to be true, practical and aligned with the purpose. The best products feel owned by the group rather than produced for them.

8. How do I know if the design has succeeded?

You know the design has worked when the group is able to engage with the real issues, speak with honesty and leave with clarity about what they have decided or discovered. Success is not measured by how closely the plan was followed. It is measured by whether the design helped people do their best thinking. When participants say the process felt fair, purposeful and constructive, the design has already done much of its work.

Do you have any tips or advice for designing and customising for facilitation success?

What has worked for you?

Do you have any recommended resources to explore?

Thanks for reading!