---
title: Discovery Method Session Templates (Interview · Workshop · Observation)
type: synthesis
tags: [bpm, discovery, qualitative, session-template, interview, workshop, observation, slide]
sources:
  - "[[sources/2018-dumas-fundamentals-of-bpm]]"
  - "[[sources/2018-dumas-fundamentals-of-bpm-ch5-discovery]]"
  - "[[sources/2014-sharp-using-scope-models]]"
  - "[[sources/2014-sharp-whats-wrong-with-this-process]]"
  - "[[sources/2010-salmon-hta-vs-cwa]]"
  - "[[sources/2012-ottensooser-graphical-vs-textual]]"
created: 2026-04-16
updated: 2026-04-16
---

# Discovery Method Session Templates

Three parallel session templates for qualitative process discovery, structured consistently as **Preparing · Roles/Principles · Session flow · When NOT to use**. Designed to be used as slide content or as session-planning checklists.

For the method-selection decision (which template to use), see [[syntheses/qualitative-discovery-method-selection-matrix]]. For the full operational interview guide, see [[syntheses/interview-structuring-for-process-models]].

---

## 1. Depth Interview

### Preparing the interview
- Document analysis / informal chat first — never walk in blind.
- Formulate working hypotheses — e.g.:
  - Role X performs tasks J and K, after receiving data from Role Z.
  - Role X sends the final output to Role Y.
- Interview guide tailored to the role being interviewed.
- Aim: confirm or reject the hypotheses.

### The interviewer
- Keeps the interview on track.
- Listens; does NOT create a model during the interview.
- Keeps detail at **activity level** — not step level (steps can be elicited later if needed for value-added / waste analysis).
- Validates an existing draft model through hypotheses (iterations 2+).
- Translates the model to natural language when validating — never shows raw BPMN ([[sources/2012-ottensooser-graphical-vs-textual]]: n=196, untrained readers gain no statistically significant understanding from BPMN alone).

### Session flow (60 min)

**Short intro (5 min)** — welcome, purpose, recording consent, scope confirmation.

**Structured (40 min)**

*Opening:* "What tasks are you responsible for?"

*Traversal — mix forward and backward across interviewees:*
- Forward: "how does your work start?" → "what happens next?"
- Backward: "when is the job done?" → trace inputs needed to get there
- Per step: inputs needed · decisions taken · output produced · resource forwarded to

*Completeness:* "what other processing options exist here?" · "after you do A and B, you do C — is that right?"

*Rainy-day (derived from exception taxonomy — do not skip):*
- "How did you handle your most difficult case?"
- "What happens if the customer doesn't reply on time?"
- "What do you do when [system] is down?"

*Frequency:* "How often does this happen? When was the last time?"

**Unstructured (15 min)** — "Is there anything else I haven't thought of?"

### When NOT to use
- The process is well-defined and uncontroversial → document analysis + automated discovery cheaper.
- The process has severe role-conflict → workshop resolves faster.
- Multiple roles must be reconciled in real time → workshop.

### Sources
[[sources/2018-dumas-fundamentals-of-bpm-ch5-discovery]] §5.2.2 · [[sources/2014-sharp-whats-wrong-with-this-process]] (stakeholder-lens question packs in [[syntheses/interview-structuring-for-process-models]] §1.3)

---

## 2. Workshop

### Preparing the session
- **Scope first** — sketch TRAC on flipchart (Trigger · Result · Activities · Cases) before the session starts.
- Stakeholder roster covers customer-side, every participant role, and the owner.
- **≤10–12 participants** per session.
- Pre-read: policies, forms, existing docs.

### The roles (dedicated people — not the analyst)
- **Facilitator** — controls parole, neutral.
- **Process modeller** — draws live.
- **Scribe** — parks unresolved questions.

### The facilitator
- Starts with sticky-notes, no BPMN gateways yet.
- Holds granularity at **subprocess / activity level** — lifts up from micro-steps.
- Encourages introverts; limits talkative participants.
- Balances criticism; surfaces disagreement as insight, not conflict.
- Translates model to natural language when validating — never shows raw BPMN.

### Session flow (~3 hours)

**Short intro (5 min)** — welcome, purpose, recording consent, ground rules.

**Build (90 min)**
1. "What triggers this process?"
2. "What result is expected — by whom?" (per stakeholder)
3. "What are the 5 ± 2 milestones in between?"

Sticky notes on the wall. No gateways yet. Subprocess-level granularity.

**Assess (45 min)** — walk the model **one enabler at a time** (see [[concepts/six-enablers-framework]]):
- Workflow
- Information systems
- Motivation & measurement
- HR & organization
- Policies & rules
- Facilities

Blanket "what's wrong?" yields defence ("it's worked for 30 years"). Single-enabler focus elicits dysfunction in every dimension.

**Close (15 min)** — confirm decisions, assign owners, set next session.

### Cadence across multiple sessions
- 3–5 sessions of ~3 h each.
- Session 1: sticky-notes build.
- Session 2: BPMN primer + validate the consolidated model.
- Subsequent: exceptions, data, handoffs.
- Consolidate offline between sessions.

### Alternative: Sharp's 90-minute facilitated scoping session
Produces TRAC + Process Summary Chart + issues/goals table in one sitting. For time-pressured executives or emergent/adaptive processes where swimlane mapping is overkill. See [[sources/2014-sharp-using-scope-models]].

### When NOT to run a workshop
- Strict-hierarchy / non-open culture — subordinates won't speak freely.
- Strong politics / hidden agendas.
- Cannot get all roles in the room at once (geographical distribution, shift work).

→ Use serial interviews instead.

### Sources
[[sources/2018-dumas-fundamentals-of-bpm-ch5-discovery]] §5.2.3 · [[sources/2014-sharp-using-scope-models]] · [[sources/2014-sharp-whats-wrong-with-this-process]]

---

## 3. Observation

### Preparing the session
- Get access + consent from site owner AND individual operator.
- Decide mode:
  - **Passive** — shadow the operator (Hawthorne risk, requires site access).
  - **Active** — analyst plays the customer / initiator (only sees customer-facing steps).
- Pre-read existing docs so you know what you expect to see — and what's missing.
- Prepare HTA-style field-note template (below).
- Plan **multiple sessions** across shifts, days, operators — one session = sunny-day only.

### The field-note template (per observed activity)
Per observed step, capture these 8 fields ([[sources/2010-salmon-hta-vs-cwa]] after Kirwan & Ainsworth 1992):

| Field | What to note |
|---|---|
| a) Initiating cue | What triggers this step |
| b) Information required | What the operator needs to know |
| c) Controls / displays used | Where the information is, how it is accessed |
| d) Actions performed | Physical/system actions |
| e) Decisions taken | Choices made |
| f) Output produced | Result of the step |
| g) Feedback observed | How the operator knew it worked |
| h) Complexity / difficulty / workarounds | Pain points, shortcuts, "officially X, actually Y" |

### The observer
- Does NOT interrupt the flow.
- **Parks questions** — does not ask mid-observation.
- Notes workarounds: "officially X, actually Y".
- Notes cognitive moments (pauses, checks, corrections) — invisible decisions.
- Does not model live.
- Expects **Hawthorne effect** early in session; plans later sessions after behaviour normalises.

### Session flow (~3 hours total, including debrief)

**Pre-brief (10 min)** with operator — purpose, scope, "behave normally", confirm analyst won't interrupt, consent to note-taking.

**Observe (2–4 hours)** — fill the field-note template per activity. Do NOT interrupt; park questions for debrief.

**Debrief (30 min)** — walk the operator through your notes:
- "Is this what you did?"
- "Why this step here?"
- "What did you decide at X?"
- "Does this happen every time, or only in case Y?"

### Iteration (HTA cycle)
Observe → draft hierarchy / process model → validate with SME → revise → observe again. Return after draft model to observe edge cases, other operators, and other shifts. **Never trust a single observation session.**

### When NOT to use observation
- Remote or dangerous sites (offshore, etc.).
- Cognitive work with no physical artefacts.
- Processes too rare to observe in reasonable time.
- Strongly proprietary / confidential steps where presence is refused.

→ Use interviews + think-aloud walkthroughs instead.

### Known biases
- **Hawthorne** — people work more diligently when watched. Counter by comparing early vs late session notes; plan multi-session coverage so behaviour normalises.
- **Sunny-day** — short windows don't contain exceptions. Plan coverage across conditions (different days, shifts, case types).
- **Customer-facing only** (active mode) — back-office remains invisible unless passive access is granted.

### Sources
[[sources/2018-dumas-fundamentals-of-bpm-ch5-discovery]] §5.2.1 · [[sources/2010-salmon-hta-vs-cwa]] · [[concepts/hierarchical-task-analysis]]

---

## Cross-template notes

- **All three methods follow the same iteration cycle**: observe / interview / consolidate → draft model → validate with domain expert → revise. No single pass is ever sufficient (Dumas §5.2.2 phase model; HTA procedure; Sharp's "consolidate offline between sessions").
- **All three methods share the sunny-day pitfall** — the normal path is over-represented. Counter with: rainy-day questions (interview), enabler-walk (workshop), multi-session coverage across conditions (observation).
- **All three methods keep granularity at activity or subprocess level** during discovery — never step level. Step-level detail is a later phase, for value-added or error analysis.
- **None of the three stand alone** — Dumas §5.2.4 recommends **mixing** methods. Start with document analysis, then layer interviews, workshops, observation as context permits.

## Related
- [[syntheses/interview-structuring-for-process-models]] — full operational interview guide.
- [[syntheses/qualitative-discovery-method-selection-matrix]] — which method to pick for a given context.
- [[methods/process-discovery-methods]] — parent method page.
- [[concepts/six-enablers-framework]] · [[concepts/hierarchical-task-analysis]]