Playing the new devil’s advocate role in facilitated modelling processes to address group homogeneity

Abstract

To address complex issues, facilitated modelling aims to represent and accommodate plural worldviews from many stakeholders and experts. In these contexts, group homogeneity can become problematic when participants’ plurality of perspectives and information is missing and people attending facilitated sessions have similar problem perceptions and interests. This is a challenge because it can lead to narrow discussion, groupthink and undermine output quality. Despite not being uncommon, effective approaches to deal with homogeneity are hardly reported. This paper presents a new role—the New Devil’s Advocate—in which some facilitators leave their neutrality-oriented stance and act as the missing stakeholders. The paper illustrates a first application to a group model building process aimed at supporting the development of energy efficiency policies in the UK. To evaluate the results, workshop transcripts were coded, participants’ and facilitators’ feedback collected, and the modelling output assessed with respect to the New Devil’s Advocate interventions during the workshop. Although the role performance appears to increase facilitators’ workload and be influenced by role performers’ personality and background, the analysis shows positive results as a promising practice to address homogeneity. Additionally, it offers a practical experience of how facilitation teams may temporarily abandon neutrality and intervene on content.