Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: 3795079a5437316c66dcc0b89bf5176b594dc07f589772621af78369d4eb397c

# Chapters: Serial Case Storytelling

Teams incrementally build a single fictional case study showing the six steps of needs analysis. After each round, one group reads their chapter aloud and all teams continue that chosen storyline for the next step.

**Time:** 35 minutes. Within the 30 to 45 minute range observed in the January 2011 Thiagi GameLetter.
**People:** 6 to 24. Teams of 3 to 5 participants. Any remaining participant joins an existing group to make a team of 4 or 5.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Apply the sequential steps of performance gap analysis to an unfolding organizational scenario.
**Use it when:** Use during training on human performance technology, training design, or problem definition to help participants connect performance gaps to root causes before choosing an intervention.
**Skip it when:** Skip when a team needs to solve an active organizational crisis using their own verified internal data.

## Materials and tools

- One printed copy of the Needs Analysis Handout per participant
- One printed copy of the Sample Case Handout per team
- One blank writing pad and pen per team
- Countdown timer visible to the room

## Before participants arrive

1. Print the Needs Analysis and Sample Case handouts.
2. Arrange room seating for small working teams of 3 to 5 participants.
3. Review the Sample Case Handout to use as your spoken demonstration narrative in Step 2.

## Say this to open

Needs analysis ensures we solve the right problem instead of jumping straight to solutions. We define a problem as the gap between what should happen and what is actually happening, trace the root cause, and select a targeted fix. Today we will build a shared case study one chapter at a time. Each team drafts a chapter. For each step, we will hear one chapter read aloud, and every team must adopt that storyline to write the next chapter.

## How to run it

### 1. Review the needs analysis framework (4 minutes)

Distribute the Needs Analysis Handout. Give participants 3 minutes of silent reading to review the six steps: ideal state, actual state, gap, possible causes, root cause, and intervention. Answer brief clarifying questions about the definitions.

### 2. Hear the facilitator sample narrative (4 minutes)

Distribute the Sample Case Handout. Narrate the six chapters of the firm revenue example aloud over 2 minutes. Pause briefly at each stage to point out how the step matches the framework. Tell teams to keep this handout as an illustrative model.

### 3. Form teams and draft Chapter 1 (4 minutes)

Divide participants into teams of 3 to 5. Instruct each team to invent Chapter 1: establishing the ideal state with a specific, measurable performance standard. Give teams 3 minutes to write. Signal when 1 minute remains.

### 4. Hear Chapter 1 and draft Chapter 2 (4 minutes)

Pick one team to read their Chapter 1 aloud. Announce that all teams must now build directly on that chosen scenario. Explain that different teams will read each subsequent chapter. Give teams 3 minutes to draft Chapter 2: identifying the current actual state with concrete metrics.

### 5. Hear Chapter 2 and draft Chapter 3 (4 minutes)

Select a different team to read their Chapter 2 aloud. Instruct all teams to draft Chapter 3: calculating and stating the exact quantitative or operational gap between the ideal and actual states from the chosen story (3 minutes).

### 6. Hear Chapter 3 and draft Chapter 4 (4 minutes)

Select a third team to read their Chapter 3 aloud. Instruct all teams to write Chapter 4: listing multiple plausible causes for why this specific gap exists (3 minutes).

### 7. Hear Chapter 4 and draft Chapters 5 and 6 (5 minutes)

Select a fourth team to read Chapter 4. Direct all teams to complete the story by drafting both Chapter 5 (identifying the single root cause) and Chapter 6 (specifying an intervention that directly eliminates that root cause) in 4 minutes.

### 8. Conclude the story and debrief (6 minutes)

Call on a fifth team to read their resolution (Chapters 5 and 6). Lead a room debrief on the logical chain and the risks of rigid procedural compliance. Take 2 or 3 participant comments to finish.


## Debrief questions

- How did having to adopt another group's plot line change your focus on the analysis steps?
- Where in this progression is a team most tempted to jump to a solution before confirming the root cause?
- What are the operational risks of treating these six steps as a rigid, purely mechanical checklist?

**Finished output:** A complete six-part narrative demonstrating the end-to-end needs analysis sequence.

## Remote

Run plenary briefings and story readings in the main room. Send teams of 3 to 5 into breakout rooms for each writing round. Provide digital copies of the handouts. When reconvening between steps, the designated reader pastes their chapter into the main chat window so all teams have the exact plot text before starting the next round.

## Hybrid

Form distinct in-person teams and fully remote teams. Maintain a shared online document where each selected reader pastes their chapter immediately after reading it aloud, ensuring both in-room and remote participants see the chosen storyline.

## Access and participation choices

- Provide written copies of all instructions and case examples in advance.
- Allow teams to pick their own scribe and reader so individuals can pass on reading aloud without explanation.

## If the session gets stuck

**A team expresses frustration that their original storyline was dropped in favor of another group's Chapter 1.**

Remind them that adapting to an existing scenario simulates real consulting work, where incoming operational data often forces a change in direction.

**A team proposes an intervention that does not link to the identified root cause.**

During the final debrief, ask the room to examine whether the proposed fix removes the root barrier or merely addresses a visible symptom.


## Terms used here

- Performance Gap: The measurable shortfall between the desired ideal state and the current actual state.
- Root Cause: The primary underlying breakdown that, when corrected, directly closes or reduces the performance gap.

## Participant material: Needs Analysis Handout

Step 1: Identify the Ideal State
Define desired performance standards that produce the results expected from typical performers.

Step 2: Identify the Actual State
Document current performance levels using observations, surveys, interviews, or existing metrics.

Step 3: Specify the Performance Gap
Express the difference between ideal and actual states using matching, concrete units of measurement.

Step 4: Identify Possible Causes
Gather data to generate candidate explanations for why the performance gap exists.

Step 5: Identify the Root Cause
Categorize causes (such as skill deficits, incentives, or lack of tools) and isolate the primary driver of the gap.

Step 6: Identify Suitable Intervention
Select a targeted corrective action designed to eliminate the verified root cause.

## Participant material: Sample Case Handout

Example Case: Small Firm Revenue Analysis

Chapter 1 (Ideal State): The leadership team sets a target of generating $50,000 monthly to meet regular payroll and provide planned wage increases.

Chapter 2 (Actual State): Review of bookkeeping records reveals actual average monthly revenue over the past eight months was $23,487.

Chapter 3 (Performance Gap): Desired $50,000 minus actual $23,487 creates an operational monthly shortfall of $26,513.

Chapter 4 (Possible Causes): Potential causes identified include undercharging clients, inadequate sales pipeline, lack of standard service packages, and slow billing cycles.

Chapter 5 (Root Cause): Analysis shows 80 percent of billable time is dedicated to two legacy accounts billed below current market rates for open-ended custom consulting.

Chapter 6 (Intervention): Transition consulting services to standardized, fixed-scope retainer agreements priced at current market rate cards.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Thiagi GameLetter, January 2011, under the title 'Chapters' by Sivasailam Thiagarajan.

Retained the serial case writing mechanic, six-step needs analysis model, and sample case from the 'Chapters' activity in Thiagi GameLetter (January 2011). UWT structured the rounds into explicit time-bound steps, clarified team sizing for 6 to 24 participants, paired the sample case handout with facilitator demonstration, and established specific remote and hybrid guidelines.

[The Thiagi Group](https://thiagi.net/archive/www/pfp/IE4H/january2011.html)

[The Thiagi Group](http://thiagi.net/archive/www/pfp/IE4H/january2011.html)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/tgl-january-2011/